Service Law - Appointment - By recruitment - Selected candidates recommended by Public Service Commission - Appointment letters not issued due to coming into operation of Model Code of Conduct in view of Assembly elections - Selection process alleged to be tainted by unsuccessful candidates - Vigilance inquiry in that regard directed - Successor Government reducing cadre strength - Selected candidates filing writ petition seeking appointment and challenging the notification whereby cadre strength was reduced - High court dismissing the petition - On appeal, Held: Decision of the State is not malafide or arbitrary - Selectees do not have any legal right of appointment subject, inter alia, to bona fide action on the part of the State - In view of the allegation regarding selection process, decision of the State justified - State is entitled to satisfy itself regarding propriety of the selection process - Direction for early disposal of inquiry - Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002 - s. 4 - Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 - Administrative Law.

 Judicial Review - Of Policy decision - Interference with - Scope of - Held: Judicial review in such cases is though not prohibited, but should be exercised on the basis of known legal principles - Superior court in exercise of its judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance of any writ in absence of any pleading and proof of malafide or arbitrariness - Pleadings.

Doctrines/Principles - Doctrines of Legitimate expectation, Promissory Estoppel, Unreasonableness and Proportionality - Applicability of.

State of Haryana sent a requisition to the Public Service Commission for filling up 58 posts in HCS (Executive Branch) and 44 posts in Allied Services. After completion of all the stages of competitive examination for the same, the selected candidates were recommended by the Commission. Due to Assembly elections, Model Code of Conduct became effective and ban was imposed on issuance of appointment letters. Writ Petitions were filed leveling serious allegations against the then Chief Minister and the Chairman of the Commission in respect of the selection. Vigilance inquiry was also directed to be conducted. After completion of the election, new Government took over. As appointment letters were not issued, successful candidates-appellants filed writ petitions complaining about delay in issuance of appointment letters. The new Government by a notification reduced the cadre strength. Writ Petition was amended challenging the notification. High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds inter alia that efficacy of the earlier selection was doubtful and vigilance enquiry was pending. Hence the present appeals.