IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10530/2023 Decided on: 01.04.2025 Dina Nath & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioners: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Prem Chand Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 25. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioners five in numbers are serving as Junior Scale Stenographers (JSSs) in different departments of the State. Their grievance is to the decision of the respondents as contained in office letter dated 05.12.2023 (Annexure P-5), whereby 10 posts of JSSs have been decided to be filled up against higher vacant posts of Personnel staff (Private Secretary, Personal Assistant & Senior Scale Stenographers) in H.P. Secretariat on secondment basis from Steno- Typist(s) working in different departments of State/Boards/ Corporations. Petitioners also seek direction to respondents No.1 & 2 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 to fill up posts of JSSs in H.P. Secretariat strictly in accordance with provisions of applicable Recruitment & Promotion Rules (R&P) or in the alternative in case of any administrative exigency a need is felt to relax the R&P Rules, in that eventuality, the posts of JSSs in H.P. Secretariat be directed to be filled up only from amongst the JSSs working in various Government Departments/Boards/Corporations etc. and not from the Steno-Typists as is intended to be done under the impugned decision dated 05.12.2023. 2. Relevant facts 2(i) The post of JSS is an entry cadre/level post for personnel staff in H.P. Secretariat. The R&P Rules for the post of JSSs notified on 18.12.2019, provide cadre strength of 40 posts, which are to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment on regular basis or by recruitment on contract basis as the case may be. The R&P Rules do not provide for filling up the posts of JSSs by secondment/transfer/promotion. Relevant Rules read as under:- 2 Number of post(s) 40 (Forty) 10 Method(s) of recruitment, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion/secondment/transfer and the percentage of post(s) to be filled in by various methods 100% by direct recruitment on a regular basis or by recruitment on contract basis, as the case may be. 11 In case of recruitment by promotion/secondment/transfer, grade(s) from which promotion/secondment/transfer is to be made. Not applicable 3 2(ii) It appears from the reply and is otherwise also an admitted position of the parties that 40 sanctioned posts of JSSs in H.P. Secretariat are presently filled up, however, there is shortage of personnel staff in the H.P. Secretariat in the higher cadre posts i.e. Private Secretary/Personnel Assistant/Senior Scale Stenographers. The vacancy position against these posts as existed at the time of filing of the reply to the writ petition by respondents No.1 & 2 is as under:- Sr. No Name of Post Sanctioned In position Vacant 1 Private Secretary 42 6 36 2 Personal Assistant 43 9 34 3 Sr. Scale Stenographer 23 21 2 4 Jr. Scale Stenographer 40 40+1 0 Total 148 77 72-1*=71 1* denotes JSS against higher vacant post. 2(iii) According to the respondents:- 2(iii)(a) In view of paucity of personnel staff in the higher cadre posts in the H.P. Secretariat, the competent authority in the year 2022 had approved filling up 25 posts of JSSs against the vacant posts in the higher cadre(s). Out of these 25 posts, 15 were to be filled up by direct recruitment and 10 posts on secondment basis from amongst JSSs of other Government Departments/Boards/Corporations. This 4 decision was conveyed vide office letter dated 18.8.2022 (Annexure P-4). 2(iii)(b) Pursuant to the above decision, respondents No.1 & 2 advertised 15 posts of JSSs to be filled up by direct recruitment through recruiting agencies. Out of 15 posts, 14 posts were advertised through Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (HPSSC), Hamirpur and 1 post from the Ex-servicemen Cell, Hamirpur. The HPSSC issued the advertisement on 24.9.2022. In the meanwhile, the HPSSC was abolished on 21.02.2023, hence, the posts could not be filled up. The single post meant to be filled through Ex-servicemen Cell, Hamirpur also remained vacant for want of qualified ex-serviceman. However, 10 posts of JSSs, which were to be filled up on secondment basis from amongst the JSSs of other Government Departments/Boards/Corporations were actually filled up on that basis. It is matter of record that three out of five petitioners participated in the drive undertaken by the respondents in the year 2022 for filling up the posts of JSSs on secondment basis from the JSSs satisfying the eligibility criteria laid down in the office letter dated 18.08.2022 but remained unsuccessful. 2(iii)(c) Even after filling up of 10 posts of JSSs in the H.P. Secretariat on secondment basis from JSSs of different departments, a large number of vacancies remained in the higher cadre of Private 5 Secretary/Personnel Assistant/Senior Scale Stenographer in H.P. Secretariat. 2(iii)(d) Respondents No.1 & 2 received representations from Steno-Typists Association as well as from some Steno-Typists from other departments on 12.01.2023 for taking the services of Steno- Typists, who had completed three years of regular service in the Government Departments/Boards/Corporations PSUs on secondment basis against the vacant posts of higher cadre (Private Secretary/Personnel Assistant/Senior Scale Stenographer in the H.P. Secretariat taking into consideration the past precedence adopted during the years 2016 & 2022 and also in view of the paucity of personnel staff in the higher cadres (Private Secretary/Personnel Assistant/Senor Scale Stenographer) in the H.P. Secretariat. Respondents No.1 & 2 decided to fill up some posts of JSSs on secondment basis from the Steno-Typists working in other departments. The competent authority gave the approval on 01.12.2023 for filling up 10 posts of JSSs on secondment basis from Steno-Typists working in different Government Departments/ Boards/Corporations. Accordingly office communication dated 05.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) was issued to all the Administrative Secretaries, Divisional Commissioners, Heads of Departments and Managing Directors of PSU’s for filling up 10 posts of JSSs in the manner prescribed therein. 6 2(iv) Petitioners feel aggrieved against office communication dated 05.12.2023 or in other words, decision of respondents No.1 & 2 to fill up 10 posts of JSSs on secondment basis from amongst Steno- Typists of various Government Departments/Boards/Corporations etc., hence this writ petition. Under interim order dated 20.12.2023 passed in this writ petition, operation of impugned office communication dated 05.12.2023 was stayed. 3. Submissions 3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that: (i) The R&P Rules for the post of JSSs do not provide filling up these posts on secondment basis. (ii) Further even in case, respondents No.1 & 2 intend to fill up posts of JSSs in the manner sought for by them, the same cannot be resorted to unless and until applicable provisions of the R&P Rules are relaxed in consultation with the H.P. Public Service Commission. There being no relaxation of the rules, the respondents cannot proceed ahead to fill up the posts of JSSs on secondment basis. (iii) Assuming that respondents can fill the post of JSSs on secondment basis then also the posts of JSSs are required to be filled up from JSSs and not Steno-Typists, which is a feeder channel for the post of JSSs in different Government Departments/Boards/Corporations. (iv) It was also highlighted that the posts of higher cadre of Private 7 Secretary/Personnel Assistant/Senior Scale Stenographer in H.P. Secretariat cannot be manned by the incumbents belonging to much lower cadre i.e. Steno-Typists. (v) Learned counsel refuted the objection taken by learned counsel for respondents No.3-27 about petitioners having no locus-standi to institute the writ petition. Reliance was placed upon several decisions in support of above submissions. 3(ii) Learned Deputy Advocate General during hearing of the case placed on record up-to-date vacancy position of personnel staff in the H.P. Secretariat, which is as under:- Sr. No Name of Post Sanctioned In position Vacant 1 Private Secretary 42 1 41 2 Personal Assistant 43 9 34 3 Sr. Scale Stenographer 23 22 1 4 Jr. Scale Stenographer 40 39 1 Total 148 71 77 Learned Deputy Advocate General on the basis of instructions memo dated 12.03.2025 as well as the averments made in the reply submitted that in terms of letter dated 05.12.2023, a stop gap arrangement is being made for filling up 10 posts of JSSs on secondment basis through Steno-Typists against the vacant posts of personnel staff in the higher cadre (Private Secretary/Personal 8 Assistant/Senior Scale Stenographers). This arrangement is being resorted to on account of shortage of staff against the higher cadre of personnel staff in the H.P. Secretariat i.e. Private Secretary/Personnel Assistant/Senior Scale Stenographer. The respondents had taken approval of the competent authority on 01.12.2023 to fill up 10 posts of JSSs on secondment basis from the Steno-Typists against higher vacant cadre. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that similar exercise was carried out during the years 2016 and 2022. That pursuant to the impugned decision contained in office communication dated 05.12.2023, respondents No.1 & 2 had received 18 applications from the Steno-Typists of other departments. That no illegality was committed by respondents No.1 & 2 in seeking to fill up 10 post of JSSs in H.P. Secretariat on secondment basis from Steno-Typists against the vacancies in the higher cadre ( Private Secretary/Personnel Assistant/Senior Scale Stenographer) in H.P. Secretariat. 3(iii) Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 27 opposed the writ petition and submitted that (i) Petitioners do not have locus-standi to assail the action of respondents No.1 & 2 in filling up the post of JSSs in the H.P. Secretariat on secondment basis through the category of Steno-Typists as previously also respondents No.1 & 2 had carried out the same exercise during the year 2022, wherein the petitioners had also participated. Having participated in 9 the similar exercise undertaken by respondents No.1 & 2 in the year 2022 and remaining successful therein, the petitioners are estopped from assailing the present exercise undertaken by respondents No.1 & 2 in the year 2023. (ii) Filling up the posts of JSSs on secondment basis is permissible in terms of instructions dated 08.02.2017 issued by the Department of Personnel subject to approval of the competent authority. Portion thereof pressed into service reads as under:- “The Department of Personnel has also issued instructions in this behalf vide O.M of even number dated 28-06-2001, which inter alia provides that the employee will be lent/borrowed in their own pay scales, no deputation allowance will be allowed and the resultant post(s) in the lending Department(s) will also not be filled up by any mode of recruitment. It has come to the notice that in some cases, where the approval of the State Government was necessary before appointing the incumbent on secondment, the same has not been obtained and the employees are still continuing as such in vitiation of rules/procedure.” It was urged that in the instant case, the competent authority has approved filling up 10 posts of JSSs on secondment basis through Steno-Typists, hence there is no illegality in the impugned decision. (iii) Learned counsel further submitted that as per the impugned decision taken by respondents No.1 & 2 on 05.12.2023, it is only the Steno-Typists in higher scale for two years, who are eligible to be considered for appointment on secondment basis against the post of JSSs for manning the vacancies in the higher cadre. Therefore contention of the petitioners that lower 10 category personnel are being inducted through secondment for manning the higher cadre posts becomes irrelevant. Only the Steno- Typists, who are enjoying higher pay-scales, are eligible to be considered for deployment on secondment basis in the H.P. Secretariat against the posts of JSSs for manning the higher cadre posts. Prayer was made for dismissing the petition. 4. Consideration Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4(i) Respondents No.1 & 2 in their reply have admitted that all 40 posts (sanctioned cadre) of the JSSs are presently filled up or in other words all 40 posts of JSSs are currently manned by JSSs. It is also an admitted position that in terms of the decision taken by respondents No.1 & 2 in office letter dated 05.12.2023, the respondents have to fill up 10 post of JSSs on secondment basis from the Steno-Typists. It has also come on record and not disputed by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the Steno-Typists, who will be inducted on secondment basis against the posts of JSSs will actually hold the vacant posts in the higher cadre of personnel staff in the H.P. Secretariat viz. post of Private Secretary/Personnel Assistant/Senior Scale Stenographers. It defies logic that when the sanctioned cadre strength of JSSs is admittedly filled up to the brim, still respondents No.1 & 2 11 are resorting to fill up more posts of JSSs on secondment basis and that too from the category of Steno-Typists for manning the posts of higher cadre & not that of JSSs. In case, respondents No.1 & 2 have vacancies in the higher cadre of Private Secretary/Personnel Assistant/Senior Scale Stenographers in H.P. Secretariat, then the same are required to be filled up in accordance with R&P Rules for the said category of post. 4(ii) Further, in case, the respondents want to induct JSSs on secondment basis and assuming it to be legally permissible, then again, the respondents have failed to justify as to why they are inducting only Steno-Typists for filling up the posts of JSSs. It is not their case that post of JSSs do not exist in different Government Departments/Boards/Corporations etc. 4(iii) Significantly, the R&P Rules for the posts of JSSs do not envisage filling up these posts on secondment basis. Rules do not provide for filing up these posts on secondment/promotion/transfer basis. In case, the contention of learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 27 is to be accepted that secondment is permissible in terms of instructions issued by the Department of Personnel on 08.02.2017 then also it is to be seen that under these very instructions, secondment can be resorted to after (i) obtaining prior approval of the competent authority and (ii) With prior consultation of the advisory Department as also the H.P. Public 12 Service Commission. The relevant portion of the instructions reads as under:- “The undersigned is directed to invite attention to a reference to the subject cited above and to say that Finance (Regulation) Department, P. Government vide their O.M No. Fin(C)B(12)-4/96 dated 20-02-1999 and subsequent OM's has issued comprehensive guidelines and clarifications governing the secondment (formerly deputation), from time to time. The secondment is allowed by AD/Department, as the case may be, only in such cases where the R&P Rules for the post, in question, permit the same. In the absence of specific provision in the recruitment rules, the same can be done only after obtaining the prior approval of competent authority, in prior consultation with advisory Departments and the H.P. Public Service Commission. Further, any relaxation of terms and conditions of secondment can only be made after the prior concurrence of Department of Personnel and Finance Department. xxxxxxxxx This issue has been examined by the State Government and it has been decided that henceforth no appointment(s) will be made on secondment basis under the State Government except in the cases in which the concerned recruitment rules mandates the same that too with the prior approval concerned AD. The services of the officer(s)/official(s) placed on secondment basis (formerly deputation) without having the approval of the competent authority, in violation of rules/instructions or prescribed procedure be returned/repatriated after giving advance intimation of reasonable period. It has also been decided in such case, the salary of the concerned officer/official should not be drawn/disbursed by the borrowing department till they join back in the parent department(s)” Respondents No.1 & 2 in their reply have pleaded that impugned decision contained in the office letter dated 05.12.2023 13 (Annexure P-5) for filling up 10 posts of JSS from amongst the Steno-Typists of various Government Departments/Boards/ Corporations etc. has been issued in relaxation of provisions of R&P Rules by obtaining approval from the competent authority. However, there is no document on record to show that for relaxation of R&P rules as alleged, the consultation as envisaged under Rule 18 of the R&P Rules was held with the H.P. Public Service Commission. The said rule is as under:- 18 Power to Relax Where the State Govt. is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, relax any of the provision(s) of these rules with respect to any class or category of person(s) or post(s). Suraj Parkash Gupta & Ors Vs. State of J&K & Other2s held that power of relaxation of R&P Rules could not be exercised without consulting the Public Service Commission & also not in an arbitrary manner. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under:- “28. The decisions of this Court have recently been requiring strict conformity with the recruitment rules for both direct recruits and promotees. The view-is that there can be no relaxation of the basic or fundamental rules of recruitment. In Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India,3 the Rule permitted relaxation of conditions of service and it was held by the three Judge Bench that the rule did not permit relaxation of recruitment rules. The 2(2000) 7 SCC 561 31992 Supp (1) SCC 272 14 words 'may consult the PSC' were, it was observed, to be read as 'shall consult PSC' and the rule was treated mandatory. In Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India4, decided by a three Judge Bench, a similar strict principle was laid down. The relevant Rule -Rule 3 of the Residuary Rules in that case did permit relaxation of "rules" Even so, this Court refused to imply relaxation of recruitment rule and observed: “The condition precedent, therefore, is that there should be appointment to the service in accordance with rules and by operation of the rule, undue hardship has been caused,......It is already held that conditions of recruitment and conditions of service are distinct and the latter is preceded by an appointment according to Rules. The former cannot be relaxed" 29. Similarly, in State of Orissa v. Sukanti Mohapatra 5 it was held that though the power of relaxation stated in the rule was in regard to 'any of the provisions of the rules', this did not permit relaxation of the rule of direct recruitment without consulting the Commission and the entire ad hoc service of direct recruit could not be treated as regular service. Similarly, in MA. Hague v. Union of India6, it was held that for direct recruitment, the rules relating to recruitment through the Public Service Commission could not be relaxed. In Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan,7 it was held that the provisions of the J & K Medical Recruitment Rules could not be relaxed for direct recruitment. Backdoor direct recruitments, could not be permitted. See also Dr. Anundhati Ajiti Pargaonkar v. State of Maharastra.8 In Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal and Anr. v. State of J & K9, this Court directed the direct recruits to go before the Public Service Commission. Decisions cited for promotees distinguishable : 41993 Supp (3) SCC 575 5(1993) 2 SCC 486 6(1993) 2 SCC 213 7 [1994] 2 SCC 630 8[1994] Suppl. 3 SCC 380 9[1996] 9 SCC 619 15 30. Two decisions which have been referred to by counsel for promotees have to be referred to but these can be distinguished. In V. Sreenivasan Reddy v. Govt. of A.P.,10 there was an order of relaxation in favour of the promotees who were not regularised under Rule 23 of the A.P. State and Substantive Service Rules. In that case this Court felt that the Government's order relaxing the requirement of consultation with the Com- mission need not be interfered with because the promotees were placed by the Government below the direct recruits. This case is therefore clearly distinguishable. (We shall be referring to this case again under Point 3). Again in Ashok Kumar Uppal v. State of J & K11 while holding that the power of relaxation could not be arbitrarily exercised, this Court upheld the relaxation of the relevant standard prescribed for typing, in respect of five direct recruits. This was because the State Recruitment Board in that case had made a recommendation for relaxation of the requisite standard in their favour and this was accepted by the Govt. The relaxation was upheld because Government had retrospective amended the promotion rule so that promotees could just go into promotion quota by sheer seniority rather than by selection as was the rule earlier. The five direct recruits were very close to the other selected direct recruits and were more meritorious than the promotees. 31. The result of the discussion, therefore, is that the wholesale regularisation by order dated 2.1.1998 (for the Electrical Wing), by way of implied relaxation of the recruitment rule to the gazetted category is invalid. It is also bad as it has been done without following the quota rule and without consulting the Service Commission. Further, power under Rule 5 of the J & K CCA Rules, 1956 to relax rules cannot, in our opinion, be treated as wide enough to include a power to relax rules of recruitment.” 10 [1995] Suppl 1 SCC 572 11[1998] 4 SCC 179 16 4(iv) The objection taken by learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 27 about petitioners having no locus standi to institute this writ petition also cannot be accepted in the given facts. It is an admitted position, as it comes out from the perusal of orders dated 09.05.2024 and 14.05.2024 passed in this petition and also the documents placed on record alongwith the reply that three out of five petitioners in the year 2022 had participated in a process similar to the one impugned in the present writ petition. But the petitioners cannot be non-suited on that score. Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar & Others12 held that the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process. Besides the above, two out of the five petitioners had admittedly not participated in any such previous selection process. Respondents No.1 to 27 have not alleged any estoppel against the 12(2019) 20 SCC 17 17 two petitioners. The three petitioners, who did participate previously had actually appeared for the posts of JSSs in the capacity of their being JSSs and not as Steno-Typists. Further, in Tinku Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.13, it was reiterated that equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. No direction can be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity contrary to applicable policy, instructions. Passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on some one does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under:- “9. That apart, the claim as has been stated above, cannot be accepted being not supported with any statutory backing. This is required for making any claim including a claim for compassionate appointment, which is an exception to the general rule of appointment requiring a proper advertisement and selection 13Civil Appeal No.8540/2024 decided on 13.11.2024 18 process to be followed as per rules which is an accepted norm. If some wrong benefit has been conferred or some benefit which is contrary to the scheme has been granted, it would not bestow a right upon the others to claim it as a right of equality by reference to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. xxxxxxxxxx 11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification.” 4(v) Power of judicial review to determine legality of administrative actions to ensure that Government carries out its duties in accordance with constitutional provisions was explained as under in Mohd. Mustafa Vs. Union of India & Others14 held as under:- 15. Judicial review may be defined as a Court's power to review the actions of other branches or levels of government; 14(2022) 1 SCC 294 19 especially the Court's power to invalidate legislative and executive actions as being unconstitutional. Power of judicial review is within the domain of the judiciary to determine the legality of administrative action and the validity of legislations and it aims to protect citizens from abuse and misuse of power by any branch of the State. The power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. Judicial review has certain inherent limitations. However, it is suited more for adjudication of disputes other than for performing administrative functions. It is for the executive to administer law and the function of the judiciary is to ensure that the Government carries out its duties in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. 16. The grounds on which administrative action is subject to judicial review are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The following observations made by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions and others v. Minister for Civil Service15 are apt: By ‘illegality’ as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those persons, the Judges, by whom the judicial power of the State is exercisable. By ‘irrationality’ I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’. It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the Court’s exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliff’s ingenious explanation in Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow, of irrationality as a ground for a court’s reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred though unidentifiable mistake of law by the decision makers. “Irrationality” by now can stand on its own 151985 AC 374 20 feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by judicial review. I have described the third head as “procedural impropriety” rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to judicial review under this head covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice. But the instant case is not concerned with the proceedings of an administrative tribunal at all”. 17. The discretionary power vested in an administrative authority is not absolute and unfettered. In Wednesbury, Lord Greene was of the opinion that discretion must be exercised reasonably. Explaining the concept of unreasonableness, Lord Greene stated that a person entrusted with discretion must direct himself properly in law and that he must call his own attention to the matter which he is bound to consider. He observed that the authority must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to the matter he is to consider. Lord Greene concluded that if an authority does not obey aforementioned rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting unreasonably.” 5. The sum total of above discussion is that:- 5(a) When the sanctioned cadre strength of JSSs is already fully occupied, there is no justification to fill up more posts of JSSs. 5(b) Under the impugned decision, respondents No.1 & 2 presently intend to fill up 10 more posts of JSSs on secondment basis. However, the R&P Rules 2019 for the posts of JSSs do not provide filling up the posts on secondment basis. 21 5(c) Even assuming that posts of JSSs can be filled up on secondment basis disregarding the R&P Rules in view of instructions dated 08.02.2017 issued by Department of Personnel as put forth by the respondents, then also as per provision of the R&P Rules as also the 2017 instructions, the same cannot be resorted to till the R&P Rules are relaxed in consultation with Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. Admittedly, the R&P Rules for the post of JSSs have not been relaxed in consultation with HPPSC to make way for filling up the posts on secondment basis. 5(d) As per the Rules in place, the posts of JSSs cannot be filled up on secondment basis from the category of Steno-Typists working in different Departments/Boards/Corporations that too for manning the vacancies in the higher cadre of Private Secretary/Personnel Assistant/Senior Scale Stenographers in the H.P. Secretariat. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned decision of respondents No.1 & 2 as contained in letter dated 05.12.2023, is quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 01st April, 2025(rohit)