This is how the appellants have number companye in appeal before us.
F. 2/41/67DH S , dated November 29, 1967.
The main difference between Rule 5 of the 1961 Rules and Rule 5 of the DHANICS Rules, 1965 is that while under the former, persons companyld be appointed to the service by transfer from a State Civil Service or other service, within a period of three years only after the Constitution of the 1961 Service under the DHANICS Rules of 1965, such persons companyld be appointed at any time.
Nevertheless, under both the Rules, such appointments by transfer companyld be made only if suitable officers in sufficient number were number available under Clause b of Rule 5 1 .
F.l l/65/DH S i , dated November 8, 1965, to be effective from December 1, 1965, and thus the Service, shortly called the DHANICS, was companystituted under Rule 3 of these Rules.
Such appointments by transfer companyld only be made upto December 1, 1976.
Respondents 3 to 10, who belonged to different State Civil Services, were transferred to the DHANICS.
1/13 66 DS S , enabling the Central Government, in companysultation with the Commission, to appoint, to the Service, by transfer, members of a State Civil Service, if in the opinion of the Central Government, the exigencies of the service so require.
2/31/67DS S , dated November 29, 1967, and Respondents 5 to 10 were appointed to Grade l by Home Ministry Notification No.
Subsequently, on November 3, 1966, the first proviso to Rule 5 1 of the Dhanics Rules was amended, vide Home Ministry Notification No.
The 1961 Rules were repealed by Rule 37 of the DHANICS Rules, 1965, and the appellants herein, who were originally appointed and companyfirmed in the Delhi Himachal Pradesh Civil Service, became, by the opera tion of Rule 17, members of the DHANICS.
Examination 1962, was companyducted by the Union Public Service Commission for direct recruitment to the various Central Ser vices, including Delhi and Himachal Pradesh Civil Service.
Respondents 3 and 4 were appointed to Grade I by Home Ministry Notification No.
The appellants appeared in this examination, and on being declared successful, opted for and were appointed to the Delhi and Himachal Pradesh Civil Service, vide Government Notification No.
Respondents 3 to 10 resisted the petition and filed a companynter affidavit on March 30, 1958, while the appellants filed a rejoinder affidavit on April 2, 1968 The Writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court which held that the power companyferred by the impugned Rules to make appointments to the DHANICS by transfer, on the Central Government,, is number unguided and its exercise is companytrolled, and that the formation of the opinion on ground of exigency is number wholly subjective and is subject to scrutiny of the Courts to a limited extent.
The appellants on March 12, 1958, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, challenging the companystitutional validity and legality of Sub rule 3 of Rule 5 of the Dhanics Rules, 1965, on the ground that it does number provide any guidelines to determine the exigency of the Service and is there fore violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution that there was numberexigency of the Service DHANICS which required the appointment of respondents 3 to 10 to that Service by transfer from the respective State Civil Ser vices.
In 1965, the President of India framed the Delhi Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service Rules, 1965, herein after referred to as DHANICS Rules, 1965 in exercise of his powers under Article 309 of the Constitution, under the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No.
As a result of these transfers, the appellants, who were already members of the Dhanics, became junior to respondents 3 to 10.
F. 6/35/61 Delhi I of December 20, 1962 and were companyfirmed in December, 1964.
