IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising from changes in Service Rules and the power of judicial review over legislative action.

Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.167/2018 and Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal Nos.165/2018 and 166/2018. We have also heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners in all the three Writ Appeals.

2. These three intra-court appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1149/2018 involving common question of law and facts and therefore, these appeals are being disposed of by a common order. The facts and circumstances, giving rise to the filing of these Writ Appeals are briefly narrated here-in-below.

3. The respondent No.1 viz., Assam Civil Service Officers Association, which is an association of Assam Civil Service Officers, along with its General Secretary, had instituted WP(C) No.1149/2018 being aggrieved by the decision of the Government of Assam to recommend the names of 10 officers belonging to the non-State Civil Service (SCS) category, for nomination to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) by contending that the recommendations are in complete violation of the norms as well as the provisions of the rules. As per the case projected by the writ petitioners, on 28.02.2017 the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personal (A) Department had issued a communication addressed to all the Additional Chief Secretaries, Principal Secretaries as well as the Commissioner and Secretaries to the Government of Assam, requesting each of them to forward names of not more than two officers for appointment to the IAS as per regulation 4 of the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation, 1997. Pursuant to the communication dated 28.02.2017 names were forwarded, whereafter a Screening Committee/Selection Committee, headed by the Chief Secretary, Assam, as its Chairman, constituted for the purpose of selecting and recommending the candidates, had considered the names of 15 non-SCS officers and thereafter, recommended the names of as many as 10 officers including the private respondent Nos.8 and 9 in the writ petition. Thereafter, on 27.10.2017, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personal (A) Department had issued a notification notifying as many as eight (8) different posts in the non-SCS cadre officers declaring them to be equivalent to the rank of Deputy Collector of the State Civil Service. Being inter-alia aggrieved by the minutes of meeting of selection committee dated 18.09.2017 as well as the equivalence notification dated 27.10.2017, the Association of Civil Service Officers of the State, along with its General Secretary, had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.1149/2018.

4. The primary contention of the writ petitioners, reduced to its essence, are as follows. Firstly, the private respondents, who were recommended for nomination to IAS, did not hold posts equivalent to Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service, as is required under regulation 4(1)(iii) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 and as such, none of them could have been recommended by the Selection Committee for nomination/appointment to the IAS cadre. Secondly, the recommendations of the DPC having been made on 18.09.2017 i.e. prior to declaration of the equivalence of the posts on 27.10.2017 and there being no corresponding amendment to Schedule-I of Assam Civil Service Rules, 1998, such recommendations were invalid in the eyes of law. To that extent, the notification dated 27.10.2017 has also been put under challenge in the Writ Petition. Thirdly, the total number of vacancies being 7 (seven) and in view of Rule 8 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 not more than 15% of the vacancies could have been re