JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these writ petitions, the same were taken uptogether for arguments and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners in both these cases have assailed the Notification dated 02.01.2025, whereby respondent No.4 has been granted re-employment to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry and have further prayed for a direction to the respondents to hold a meeting of the DPC for promotion of the petitioners to the post of Director. 3. The facts are not in dispute that petitioner Vishal Sharma in CWP No.231 of 2025 has superannuated on 31.01.2025 and fell in the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Director, in case the post would have been filled up in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Likewise, the other petitioner is still continuing in service and falls within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Director. 4. It is averred that impugned Notification dated 02.01.2025, whereby re-employment has been granted to respondent No.4 on the post of Director is contrary to the provisions of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is averred that respondent No.4 before granting the re-employment was necessarily obliged and duty bound to have followed the provisions contained in Chapter 22 of Hand Book on Personal matters, Government of H.P., which contains the provisions with respect to extension and re-employment and is mandatory as held by this Court in CWPIL No.201 of 2017. 5. The official respondents No.1 to 3 have filed their joint reply, wherein, it has been stated that the Department of Personnel is the cadre controlling department of the Director- Animal Husbandry and convenes the meeting of DPC for filling up the post of Director Animal Husbandry on the proposal furnished by respondent No.2 i.e. Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry. 6. Respondent No.2 in this case had forwarded a copy of representation of the Minister for Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh received from the Hon’ble Chief Minister’s office regarding grant of extension in service/re- employment in favour of respondent No.4, who was due to retire on 31.12.2024. 7. In the representation, it was observed that respondent No.4 is very hardworking officer and well conversant with every activities of the Department. 7. In the representation, it was observed that respondent No.4 is very hardworking officer and well conversant with every activities of the Department. It was further observed that during his tenure as Director, he handled the things perfectly and efficiently and, therefore, keeping in view the work experience, the Minister concerned recommended his case for extension/re-employment in favour of respondent No.4 atleast for one year in the larger public interest. 8. The competent authority, after taking into consideration the service experience of respondent No.4 and recommendation of the Minister, approved re-employment in his favour for a period of six months on the post of Director, Animal Husbandry in the larger public interest. Accordingly, respondent No.4 was re-employed to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry vide Notification dated 02.01.2025. 9. Respondent No.2 has also filed its reply, wherein, identical averments as those made by respondents No.1 and 3 with regard to processing and moving the case of respondent No.4 for extension of service and its approval have been made. 10. As regards respondent No.4, he has filed his separate reply to justify that he has an outstanding career, therefore, has rightly been granted re-employment. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case carefully. 12. Chapter 22 of Handbook on Personal Matters, deals with extension/re-employment and some of the provisions relevant at this stage are extracted below:- Chapter 22 EXTENSION AND RE-EMPLOYMENT 22.1 Superannuation Superannuation is retirement from the service on attainment of specific age. The competent authority (Central or State govt.) decides on the age limit for different posts. F.R. 56 contains detailed provisions about the specific age of superannuation. 22.2 Distinction between Extension and Re-employment The term "extension" is quite different from the term/expression "reemployment". Extension in service- The extension in service is continuance in service and the officer/official does not superannuate or retires on reaching the date of superannuation. Further, the period of extension in service counts for qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits, besides entitling the incumbent to full pay and allowances and increments etc. In addition, the concerned officer/officials in whose favour extension in service is granted remains a member of service if he/she was so appointed and will be bound by the specific rules governing the service. Re-employment- The employment after actual superannuation or retirement is called "re- employment". In addition, the concerned officer/officials in whose favour extension in service is granted remains a member of service if he/she was so appointed and will be bound by the specific rules governing the service. Re-employment- The employment after actual superannuation or retirement is called "re- employment". The re-employment may be from the date following the date of superannuation or after some period. A re-employed officer/official gets pension and his/her pay is fixed under special orders. A re- employed officer/official is governed by the general rules governing service conditions of a Government employee and such other rules a may be specified in the terms of re-employment. The period of re- employment doesn't qualify as service for pension and other benefits, in so far as his/her service from which he/she had superannuated is concerned. However, the eligibility of a re-employed persons to a second pension based on the basis of re-employment will depend on the terms of the re-employment. 22.3 Extension or re-employment only in really exceptional circumstances. The age of retirement of different categories of Government employees has been laid down in the Fundamental Rules, 56. On attaining the age indicated in the above rules, retirement is automatic and in the absence of specific orders to the contrary by the competent authority a government employee must retire on the due date. The date of superannuation of a government employee is known in advance and ordinarily there should not be the question of failure to make arrangements for his/her release sufficiently in advance. It is the responsibility of the administrative authority concerned to ensure that the government employees under their control so retire. It would be appreciated that in each case of extension or re- employment, it is not only the next man who misses promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along the hierarchical strata. Thus, one person getting re-employment/extension means deferment of promotion for six or seven persons. Too many cases of extension in service or reemployment are apt to cause frustration and affect the morale of the staff in general. Keeping in view these circumstances the following criteria and procedure have been evolved with a view to ensure that extension/re-employments of superannuated officers are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. Too many cases of extension in service or reemployment are apt to cause frustration and affect the morale of the staff in general. Keeping in view these circumstances the following criteria and procedure have been evolved with a view to ensure that extension/re-employments of superannuated officers are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. 22.4 CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION/RE-EMPLOYMENT With regard to the grant of extension/re-employment, the following instructions have been issued: (1) No proposal for extension of service/re-employment beyond the age of superannuation should ordinarily be considered. (2) Extension in service/re-employment can be justified only in very rare and exceptional circumstances. Even in such cases, 60 years of age should he the deadline for non-scientific/technical posts and 62 years in the case of scientific/technical personnel. This should not be construed to mean that extensions of service/reemployment can be granted to non-scientific 'non-technical personnel’ upto the age of 60 years and to scientific/technical personnel upto the age of 62 years more or less as a matter of course. The over- riding consideration for the grant of extension of service/reemployment is that it must be clearly in the public interest and in addition satisfy one of the following two conditions:- (i) that other officers are not ripe enough to take over the job: or (ii) that the retiring officer is of outstanding merit. Test (i) would be satisfied only if there is shortage in particular specialisation or if it is not possible to find a suitable successor or if the officer is engaged on a work or project of vital importance which is likely to produce results in a year or two. If officers in the next lower post are not eligible for promotion on the ground that they have not put in the minimum service in the lower grade prescribed under the rules, no promotions can be made to the higher grade, unless such officers put in the requisite length of service. But officers who are eligible for promotion to the post, against which extension/re- employment is recommended, should not be rejected solely on the ground that they do not have as much experience as the retiring officer. They should be considered for promotion according to the recruitment rules and if they are found suitable they should be promoted to the posts being vacated by the retiring officers. They should be considered for promotion according to the recruitment rules and if they are found suitable they should be promoted to the posts being vacated by the retiring officers. Test (ii) would not be satisfied by the mere fact that the specialist (e.g., a scientific or technical officer) is fit in all respects or is otherwise able to discharge effectively the duties of the post held by him. (1) No extension of service/re-employment should be considered on the ground that a suitable successor is not available unless it is established that action to select a successor had been taken well in advance but the selection could not be finalised in time for justifiable reasons. (2) A proposal for the grant of extension of service/re- employment based merely on the consideration that the officer's predecessor had been given extension/re-employment should obviously not be accepted. (3) In the case of honorary appointment in Public Sector Undertakings e.g. appointments on the Board of Director; of Public Sector Undertakings the limit may be 65 years provided the appointment is really honorary and does not carry any substantial remuneration. (Ministry of Home Affairs O.M No. 26/11/68-Ests (B) dated 17-06-1969) 22.4.1 Grant of extension in service/ re-employment- Hon’ble High Court of H.P decision dated 08-02-2018 On the basis of letter petition highlighting the practice of the Government giving re-employment/extension to such of those employees, who stand superannuated/ retired, addressed to the Court, Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh taking suo motu cognizance registered the petition {CWPIL No. 201 of 2017 - Court on its own motion Versus State of H.P. & another} on December 17, 2017 passed the following orders :- 6. The State is bound by the affidavit and as such, petition is disposed of with a direction that henceforth no employee shall be given extension or be re-employed beyond the age of superannuation /retirement save and except, in accordance with the Chapter-22 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol-II (2nd Edition) and the provisions of Fundamental Rules 56(d). Letter and spirit of the criteria prescribed and the Rules framed be strictly followed. Letter and spirit of the criteria prescribed and the Rules framed be strictly followed. The State Government in the Department of Personnel reiterated that the extension/re-employment beyond the age of retirement/superannuation has to be allowed in very rare and exceptional circumstances and strictly in accordance with provisions provided under Chapter-22 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol-II (2nd edition) and the provisions of FR 56 (d). Extension in service/re-employment given if any, in government service without observance of the above prescribed provisions of rules will be construed as contempt of the Court and the concerned Administrative Department shall solely responsible for such violation. (H.P. Govt. Department of Personnel letter No. Per(AP.B)E(3)-56/2017 dated 08-02- 2018- Annexure 22.2) 12. It would be clear from the aforesaid provisions that this Court while disposing of CWPIL No.201 of 2017 had passed specific directions that “henceforth no employee shall be given extension or be re-employed beyond the age of superannuation/retirement save and except, in accordance with the Chapter-22 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol-II (2nd Edition) and the provisions of Fundamental rules 56(d). Letter and spirit of the criteria prescribed and the Rules framed be strictly followed”. 13. At this stage, it needs to be observed that this Court cannot go into the “suitability” and “eligibility” of respondent No.4 to hold the post and it is not open to the petitioners to call upon the Government to justify as to why they choose to exercise the power of re-employment. The reasons for exercising the powers of re-employment are not justiciable, as the source of power is traceable to the Constitution. Therefore, the only question that remains to be considered and answered is whether the provisions of Chapter 22 have been followed in its letter and spirit as earlier directed by this Court in CWPIL No.201 of 2017. 14. In order to satisfy ourselves regarding the adherence to Chapter 22 by the respondents, we have called for the original record and find that it was the Minister of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, who requested the Hon’ble Chief Minister vide letter dated 12.12.2024 to grant extension to respondent No.4. It shall be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of the letter, which read as under:- “Dr. Pradeep Sharma, Director of Animal Husbandry is retiring on 31.12.2024. Dr. Sharma is very hard working officer and is well conversant with every activities of the Department. It shall be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of the letter, which read as under:- “Dr. Pradeep Sharma, Director of Animal Husbandry is retiring on 31.12.2024. Dr. Sharma is very hard working officer and is well conversant with every activities of the Department. During his tenure as Director, he handles the things perfectly/efficiently. His working is outstanding and to the entire satisfaction of our Government as well as entire staff of the Department/general public. He deserves retention on this post for some time more. I would request you to kindly approve that extension in service/re-employment for atleast one year be granted to him in the larger public interest and oblige. 15. This proposal appears to have been placed before the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 17.12.2024 and the decision thereafter communicated to the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry reads thus:- Sub:- Regarding providing of extension in service/re-employment in favour of Dr.Pardeep Sharma, Director of Animal Husbandry. Enclosed please find herewith a photocopy of letter dated-nil-received from Shri Chander Kumar, Hon. Minister (Agriculture and AH) on the subject noted above, on which Hon’ble Chief Minister has observed as under:- “Approved on six months” Pr.Secretary (Animal Husbandry) to the Govt. of H.P., Shimla is, therefore, requested to take further necessary action in the matter as per observations of the Honourable Chief Minister under intimation to this office as well as quarter concerned.” 16. It is thereafter that the department processed the file in purported compliance to Chapter 22 and the relevant noting reads as under:- Dy. No. 2110308/AP-I/21.12.2024 Ps/29-31:- The AD (Animal Husbandry) has forwarded a U. O. note from the Special Secretary to the Chief Minister along-with representation of Shri Chander Kumar, Hon'ble Minister of Agriculture & Animal Husbandry, HP which is regarding extension-in-service/re-employment in favour of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Director, Animal Husbandry, HP who is due to retire on 31.12.2024 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Hon'ble Chief Minister has observed as under: - "Approved on six months" The proposal for extension/re-employment beyond the age of retirement has to be considered in accordance with the provisions mentioned in Chapter-22 of the Hand Book of Personnel Matters, Volume-II and in accordance with the provisions of FR 56(d). The Hon'ble Chief Minister has observed as under: - "Approved on six months" The proposal for extension/re-employment beyond the age of retirement has to be considered in accordance with the provisions mentioned in Chapter-22 of the Hand Book of Personnel Matters, Volume-II and in accordance with the provisions of FR 56(d). Point 1 and 2 of Para 22.4 of Chapter 22 of Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-II (P/32-33) provides as under:- "(1) No proposal for extension of service/re-employment beyond the age of superannuation should ordinarily be considered. (2)............ The overriding consideration for the grant of extension of service/re-employment is that it must be clearly in the public interest and in addition satisfy on the following two conditions: - (i) That other officers are not ripe enough to take over the job; Or (ii) That the retiring officer is of outstanding merit. Test (i) would be satisfied only if there is shortage in a particular specialisation, or if it is not possible to find a suitable successor or if the officer is engaged on a work or project of vital importance which is likely to produce results in a year or two. If officers in the next lower post are not eligible for promotion on the ground that they have not put in the minimum service in the lower grade prescribed under the rules, no promotions can be made to the higher grade, unless such officers put in the requisite length of service. But officers who are eligible for promotion to the post against which extension/re-employment is recommended should not be rejected solely on the ground that they do not have as much experience as the retiring officer. But officers who are eligible for promotion to the post against which extension/re-employment is recommended should not be rejected solely on the ground that they do not have as much experience as the retiring officer. They should be considered for promotion according to the recruitment rules and if they are found suitable, they should be promoted to the post being vacated by the retiring officer." The provisions of the FR 56 (d) provide as under:- "(d) No Government servant shall be granted extension in service beyond the age of retirement of 58 years: Provided that a Government servant dealing with budget work or working as a full time member of a committee which is to be wound up within a short period of time may be granted extension of service for period not exceeding three months in public interest." Further, the Department of Personnel (Appointment-II) has also issued instructions regarding grant of extension-in-service/re-employment to the officers/officials after superannuation vide letter dated 8th February, 2018 (P/34-35), which provide as under: - "The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWPIL No. 201 of 2017 titled Court in its own motion versus State of H.P. & another has passed the following order on 19.12.2017, after taking on record the reply affidavit so filed by the State, as under: - 6. The State is bound by the affidavit and as such, petition is disposed of with a direction henceforth no employee shall be given extension or be re- employed beyond the age of superannuation/retirement save and except, in accordance with the Chapter-22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-II (2nd Edition) and the provisions of the Fundamental Rules, 56(d). Letter and spirit of the criteria prescribed and the rules framed be strictly followed. 2. It is, therefore, reiterated that the extension is service/re-employment beyond the age of retirement/superannuation has to be allowed in very rare and exceptional circumstances and strictly in accordance with provisions provided under Chapter-22 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, Volume-II (2nd Edition) and the provisions of FR 56 (d)." In this regard, it is submitted that the AD (Animal Husbandry) has also furnished proposal to convene the DPC meeting for filling up the post of Director, Animal Husbandry, HP as the present incumbent Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma is going to retire on 31.12.2024 (A/N). The proposal is being put up on separate file. Pradeep Kumar Sharma is going to retire on 31.12.2024 (A/N). The proposal is being put up on separate file. The AD has furnished particulars of 4 eligible Joint Directors and Dr. Vishal Sharma, Joint Director is the senior most the seniority list, who is also going to retire on 31.01.2025. However, the AD has not made any recommendation for extension-in- service/re-employment in favour of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Director, AH. Keeping in view the above, the proposal regarding grant extension-in-service/re-employment in favour of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Director, Animal Husbandry, HP is submitted for kind consideration/orders please.” 17. The departmental file was then placed before the competent authority and eventually when the file reaches the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, he raised a query in the following terms:- “As anyone represented against the proposed extension” 18. The departmental file was thereafter again processed by the department on 30.12.2024 and the noting appended on the same day, reads as under:- N/18-ante. The AD (Animal Husbandry), vide letter dated 30.12.2024 (P/36-38), has forwarded the representation dated 20.12.2024 of Dr. Vishal Sharma, Joint Director, AH, Palampur and representation dated nil of Dr. Sanjeev Dhiman, Joint Director (HQ), Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Shimla. Dr. Vishal Sharma, Joint Director, AH has submitted that he has completed 33 years service in the department and due for promotion to the next higher post of Director, Animal Husbandry, AH w.e.f. 01.01.2025 on account of retirement of the present incumbent Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma on 31.12.2024 upon attaining the age of superannuation. He further submitted that he may be deprived of this opportunity in the event of any unwarranted extension in service to any person. Therefore, he has requested that he may be considered for promotion to the post of Director, Animal Husbandry keeping in view the sacred principles of natural justice and fair play. The services particulars of Dr. Vishal Sharma, Joint Director, AH and Dr. Sanjeev Dhiman, Joint Director, AH are at Flag-A. Further, Dr. Sanjeev Dhiman, Joint Director, AH has submitted in his representation that he has completed 33 years service in the department and due for promotion to the next higher post of Director, Animal Husbandry, AH w.e.f. 01.02.2025. The services particulars of Dr. Vishal Sharma, Joint Director, AH and Dr. Sanjeev Dhiman, Joint Director, AH are at Flag-A. Further, Dr. Sanjeev Dhiman, Joint Director, AH has submitted in his representation that he has completed 33 years service in the department and due for promotion to the next higher post of Director, Animal Husbandry, AH w.e.f. 01.02.2025. He has further submitted that it has come to the notice that service extension of a serving incumbent have been issued without consideration to the fact that such an unwarranted extension shall completely hinder his chance of promotion to the post of Director, AH. He has further submitted that he hails from Scheduled Caste community and it is the primary duty of the State to safeguard the career aspects of the officers/officials belonging to weaker/deprived sections of the society. He has submitted that the extension in service to any predecessor above to him in the department hierarchy, shall be construed as denial of opportunity to him and he will be compelled to take recourse to every administrative/legal remedy for such denial to any person belonging to weaker sections of the society. Therefore, he has requested to consider his representation and to consider him for promotion to the post of Director, AH w.e.f. 01.02.2025.” 19. The matter after being processed at the level of Secretary Personnel was then placed before the Chief Secretary, who appended the following note:- “May take a view keeping in view the position at N/19 to 21. 20. Finally, when the matter was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 30.12.2024, he observed in writing as under:- “May be re-employed for six months”. 21. Consequent thereupon that respondent No.4 came to be appointed on the post of Director vide Notification dated 02.01.2025 with immediate effect, for a period of six months in the public interest. 22. As observed above, the Court will essentially not be in a position to go into the “suitability” of respondent No.4 and as regards the “eligibility”, the same is not denied. But, the moot question still remains is whether the procedure laid down in Chapter 22 has been followed while granting re-employment to respondent No.4. 23. 22. As observed above, the Court will essentially not be in a position to go into the “suitability” of respondent No.4 and as regards the “eligibility”, the same is not denied. But, the moot question still remains is whether the procedure laid down in Chapter 22 has been followed while granting re-employment to respondent No.4. 23. It would be noticed from Clause 22.6 of Chapter 22 lays down the procedure for processing the cases for extension in service/re-employment, which reads as under:- 22.6 Procedure for processing cases of extension in service/re-employment:- (i) A systematic review of the officers approaching the age of superannuation should be conducted well in advance so that whenever necessary suitable persons are selected in time to replace such officers and given training before hand thereby minimizing the number of proposals for extension/reemployment. (ii) Proposals for grant of extension of service to the officers working in posts outside the cadre to which they permanently belong should have specific concurrence of the cadre authority. (iii) Whenever any officer is considered for grant of extension or reemployment, his character roll and personal file should be carefully scrutinised and all other relevant information that may be available should be taken into account to judge whether the officer had good reputation for integrity and honesty. In cases where the officer is not considered to have good reputation for integrity and honesty, he should not be considered eligible for grant of extension; re-employment in service. The appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry should furnish a certificate of Integrity along with the Annexure II as follows where it proposed to grant extension of service/ re-employment :- "Having scrutinised the character roll and personal file of Shri/Smt./Kum. and having taken into account all other relevant available information, I certify that he/she has a good reputation for integrity." (iv) The following proforma may be utilised in the Administrative Department/Departments while considering the cases of extension in service/re-employment of any officer or member of the staff.” Proforma Proforma for sending proposals for approval of Government for grant of extension/re-employment to Government employees beyond the age of superannuation. 1 . Designation of Post. 2 Duration of the post: 3. Scale and terms of the post and perquisite attached, if any: 4. Whether financial sanction for the creation of post/continuance of post for the duration shown at (2) has been obtained: 5. Method of recruitment: 6. 1 . Designation of Post. 2 Duration of the post: 3. Scale and terms of the post and perquisite attached, if any: 4. Whether financial sanction for the creation of post/continuance of post for the duration shown at (2) has been obtained: 5. Method of recruitment: 6. Name and the terminal date of appointment of the outgoing incumbent of the post: 7. Name of the officer proposed for appointment and the service to which he belongs: 8. Full service particulars of the officer with date of birth and pay drawn: 9. Names of other officers considered: 10. If promotion post, whether copies of proceedings of a D.P.C are being enclosed? If not, why not? 11. Whether character roll of the officers proposed and those considered are being sent. If not, why not? 12 (i) If the proposal involves extension/re-employment, please indicate: 13 (a) Whether the post is scientific/technical or non scientific/non-technical: (b) Whether the officer is to be granted extension of service or re-employment: c) Periods of extension/re- employment granted earlier to the officers, if any: d) Date from which extension/re-employment is to be granted. e) Period of extension of service/re-employment: (ii) Justification for grant of extension/re-employment if the post is scientific/technical: (iii) Justification for grant of extension/re-employment if the post is non- technical/non-scientific: (iv) The date from which it was known that vacancy would occur: Action taken to select a successor with chronological details: If selection is being made, reasons why this could not be finalized in good time. If proposal involves extension/re-employment can some officiating or ad- hoc arrangements be made, pending fresh appointment by proper selection? If not, why not? Whether orders of the Minister-in-charge have been obtained? 13 Whether the prescribed Integrity certificate, from the appropriate authority, is enclosed. 24. Having gone through the records produced by the respondents, we find that the procedure as contemplated in Clause 22.6 has not been followed and rather has been violated with impunity, that too, despite the judgment passed by this Court in CWPIL No.201 of 2017. Even the certificate of integrity and thereafter the proforma as prescribed under this provision is not available anywhere on the record. 25. The administrative instructions/circulars issued by the Government are expected to be followed and obeyed. Even the certificate of integrity and thereafter the proforma as prescribed under this provision is not available anywhere on the record. 25. The administrative instructions/circulars issued by the Government are expected to be followed and obeyed. A five Judge Bench of the Patna High Court has considered the binding effect of executive instructions in , wherein, it has been held that not only the statutory provisions are meant to be obeyed or enforced, but even executive instructions issued by the State Government are expected to be obeyed. The very object of issuance of such executive instructions is to avoid arbitrariness. 26. In the case of Home Secretary, U.T. of Chandigarh and another vs. Darshjit Singh Grewal and others, (1993) 4 SCC 25 , one of the questions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that fell for consideration was whether policy/guidelines issued by the Chandigarh Administration was binding on the Chandigarh Engineering College which is a constituent college of Punjab University. The Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations in para 14 of the judgment as under:- “14. It may be relevant to emphasize at this juncture that while the rules regulations referred to above are statutory, the policy guidelines are relatable to the executive power of the Chandigarh Administration. It is axiomatic that having enunciated a policy of general application and having communicated to it all concerned including the Chandigarh Engineering College, the Administration is bound by it. It can, of course, change the policy but until that is done, it is bound to adhere to it.” 27. A policy/policy decision/policy matter is made by Government after considering all the points from different angles in framing the policy the Government also takes into consideration the administrative efficiency and other incidental matters. Once the Government issues administrative orders, executive instructions, it is obligatory on its officials to execute the same in its letter and spirit. The rule of law casts a duty on the administrative functionaries to act within the framework of the law, be it law made by the legislature, subordinate legislation or executive orders issued under Article 73 and 162 of the Constitution. They are also obliged to follow the circulars/memos and instructions issued by the Government. 28. In the matter of policy decision of the Government, it is trite that Courts, in exercise of their jurisdiction, do not normally transgress to policy decision. They are also obliged to follow the circulars/memos and instructions issued by the Government. 28. In the matter of policy decision of the Government, it is trite that Courts, in exercise of their jurisdiction, do not normally transgress to policy decision. The Courts’ interference is called for only on limited grounds, when it suffers from unreasonableness, arbitrariness or it is beyond legislative power or is beyond constitutional limits or public policy or against statutory provision. If the Courts have treated the policy/policy decision/policy matter on such a high pedestal then it cannot be allowed to breach and ignore its order with impunity. 29. In this context, it is necessary to note that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged, and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. 30. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword. (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628 , B. s. Minhas vs. Indian Statistical Institute 1984 SC 363,, Amarjit singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab 1975 SC 984, Sukhdev singh vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi 1975 SC 1331) 31. When the State lays down executive instructions for taking any action, it is imperative on its part to scrupulously follow the same, to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fair-play (B. S. Minhas supra). Executive instructions issued by the State are binding on it. (Swaran Singh Chand vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 2009 (13) SCC 758 and H. V. Nirmala vs. Karnataka State Financial Corpn. 2008 SC 2440) 32. Having professed to abide by its executive instructions, the Government cannot, in the absence of any statutory provision, act contrary thereto. (N. Kannapan vs. State (Union territory) Andaman & Nicobar Islands 2013 SC 336 and Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 2002 SC 3040) 33. It is settled principle of law that acts must be done in a prescribed manner and in no other way, the conditions of rules and prescribed procedure must be satisfied and there must be application of mind. Meaning thereby that once methodology for doing a particular act is provided under the statute, Rules, regulations, instructions etc. then, such act must be done in the manner and way prescribed alone and in no other way. Meaning thereby that once methodology for doing a particular act is provided under the statute, Rules, regulations, instructions etc. then, such act must be done in the manner and way prescribed alone and in no other way. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and others, AIR 1964 SC 358 ; Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs. Union of India and others, 1976 SC 789 and Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahabir Prasad and others, J.T. 1999 (7) 256. Suffice it, therefore, to observe that State Government is obligated to abide by its own instructions as contained in Chapter-22. 34. Moreover, in addition to the existence of extra- ordinary circumstances, the re-employment can only be made in public interest. The State has to consider the need for re- employment in the larger public interest of public as well as the department and its decision ought not to be sponsored by private or political interests. 35. The Government is obliged to balance the need for re-employment in public interest on the one hand and its obligation to consider the cases of other eligible candidates or their non-availability on the other. This approach alone would be in accordance with the specific instructions issued by the Government itself. The decision of the Government in re- employing a Government servant, thus, must stand the acid test of duel criteria afore referred. 36. As already observed above, the sole ground for extension/re-employment was the recommendation of the Hon’ble Minister, upon which, the Hon’ble Chief Minister had already approved six months’ re-employment. Prior to that the file was not processed at all by the Department. Therefore, once a decision had already been taken by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, who on earth muchless a “lesser mortal”, could have bye-passed the order. Obviously, such decision had to be justified at all costs. The respondent-State admittedly did not at all consider whether other eligible candidates are available in the Department. This attitude of the State certainly tilts the balance of equality and administrative exigencies towards private/individual interest rather than public interest. Administrative orders of the present kind must serve a greater public interest. Obviously, such decision had to be justified at all costs. The respondent-State admittedly did not at all consider whether other eligible candidates are available in the Department. This attitude of the State certainly tilts the balance of equality and administrative exigencies towards private/individual interest rather than public interest. Administrative orders of the present kind must serve a greater public interest. It must be passed on public grounds and the said expression is of wide magnitude and cannot have such a limited meaning that because merely a person being a Director, he must continue in the Department, more particularly, the provisions of Chapter 22 of the Hand Book, which are mandatory, were required to be followed. 37. We need to reiterate that normally, the power of the Government in regard to the re-employment/extension is absolute, but is subject to the conditions and limitations provided in the rules or instructions. Once the Government forms the opinion that it is in public interest, then, correctness of such opinion can normally be not challenged before the Courts. However, if such decision is arbitrary, it will be open for the Court to interfere in such matters. 38. After all it is the Government itself while incorporating Clause 22 has specifically mentioned “it would be appreciated that in each case of extension or re-employment, it is not only the next man who misses promotion, but often several people miss consequential promotions all along the hierarchical strata. Thus, one person getting re-employment/extension means deferment of promotion for six or seven persons”. 39. No doubt, it is the Government which is the final authority to take such a decision. The decision is subjective but ought to be data based, bonafide and in public interest as well as in the interest of administration of service of the State. Ordinarily, the burden of showing the exceptional circumstances and public grounds is on the State and it must be reflected from the record. 40. Administrative orders of the present kind must serve a greater public interest. It must be passed on public grounds and it is for this precise reason that the respondents, in their wisdom, provided for a proper procedure for processing cases of extension in service/re-employment. 41. 40. Administrative orders of the present kind must serve a greater public interest. It must be passed on public grounds and it is for this precise reason that the respondents, in their wisdom, provided for a proper procedure for processing cases of extension in service/re-employment. 41. It is more than settled that extension in service/re- employment, is only to be made in exceptional circumstances, whereas the instant case, is one “spoil system” as the re- employment has been made illegally. Merely because the recommendation has come from an elected representative, would not justify the extension/re-employment, in absence of satisfaction recorded. 42. Since, the respondents have failed to follow the procedure as contemplated in Chapter 22 of the Hand Book on Personal Matters, which as per directions of this Court passed in CWPIL No.201 of 2017 titled as Court on its own motion vs. State of H.P and another, decided on 19th December, 2017, have been held to be binding on the State Government and further directed to be followed in letter and spirit. Therefore, the re-employment granted to respondent No.4 cannot be countenanced and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 43. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, both the writ petitions are allowed. The re-employment granted to respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside with immediate effect. The official respondents are directed to convene a fresh DPC and since petitioner in CWP No.231 of 2025 namely, Vishal Sharma was illegally deprived of, his case from consideration for promotion is required to be considered along-with other eligible candidates in the DPC so convened. 44. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.