Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.

Is the selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 7 and 9 to the Indian Administrative Service as notified by the Government of February 5, 2003 fair, legal and in conformity with the Rules? This is the short question that arises for consideration. In a nutshell, the petitioner alleges that the selection was unfair. The 11th respondent, the present Chief Secretary and a Member of the Selection Committee, had arbitrarily tailored the service record of the 9th respondent. He had graded him as ‘Exceptional’ and ‘Outstanding’ in the confidential reports for the relevant period of six years Viz. 1995 to 2000. These reports were actually written in the year 2001 and are identical in content. An unfair assessment was made. Thus, the selection is even tainted by malafides. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

2. The petitioner joined service in the year 1972. He held various posts. On December 3, 1990, he was appointed as an Under Secretary in the State Government. In the year 1995, he was promoted as Deputy Secretary. In March 1999, the petitioner was still further promoted to the post of joint Secretary. In the meantime, on September 6, 2002, the petitioner had been posted as Director of Treasuries. On his promotion to the pose of Additional Secretary, the petitioner was allowed to continue on the post of Director as held by him. He continues to hold this post even today. The petitioner maintains that the promotions were made on the basis of his consistently good performance.

3. Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 had similarly joined different posts in different Departments. The petitioner claims that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 9 have put in lesser years of service than him. He further maintains that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have lesser years of gazetted service to their credit. The petitioner claims to have held important posts. He lays a further claim to a consistently outstanding record, which is better than that of respondent Nos. 4 to 9. He claims to have become eligible for consideration for promotion to the I.A.S in 1998.

4. In the year 2001, there was a proposal for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service by selection from amongst the Non-state Civil Service Officers as contemplated under the I.A.S (Appointment by Selection) Regulation, 1997. Certain officers filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal complaining that the state government had not laid down any guidelines for making the selection. This petition was registered as O.A.No. 1228/2000. The Tribunal dismissed it. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners therein filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution viz. O.P.No. 34248/2000. It was decided vide order dated December 21,2001. A copy of the order passed by the Division Bench has been produced as Ext. p2. While allowing the petition, the Bench had directed the State Government “to frame proper guidelines so as to assess the performance of the eligible candidates for inclusion in the zone of consideration.” It was further observed that the criteria to be adopted by the Government should be “transparent and based on relevant materials. Orders to be passed by the State Government should have some rational basis while including or excluding (officers) from the zone of consideration.” Finally, the Bench had said, “after formulating proper guidelines and assessing performance on the basis of the guidelines, the State Government would prepare the panel for being considered by the selection committee for appointment to the I.A.S. for the year(s) 2000 and 2001.”

5. Despite the directions given by the Bench, the State Government did not formulate or polish any guidelines. Aggrieved by the inaction and apprehending that selection was being made arbitrarily, the petitioner approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This petition was registered as O.P. No. 36919/2002. The two-fold grievance made