Courts cannot direct the State to create posts or frame specific recruitment and promotion rules.

Petitioner No. 1, a Senior Scale Stenographer, and Petitioner No. 2, a Senior Assistant (later promoted to Superintendent Grade-II), sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Forest Department to create Law Officer posts and frame Recruitment and Promotion (R) Rules for the same

The petitioners relied on a 1987 proposal and a 2005 government directive that suggested departments insert promotion avenues for clerical staff with LLB degrees into Legal Assistant roles

Although the Forest Department sent several communications recommending the creation of these posts due to increasing litigation, the State Government ultimately rejected the proposal via communication dated 24.08.2009 (Annexure P-17).

The rejection was based on the fact that a District Attorney had already been appointed to manage the department's legal work

1. Whether the High Court can exercise judicial review to direct the State to create specific posts or frame Recruitment and Promotion Rules in a particular manner

2. Whether internal departmental recommendations and file notings constitute a binding government decision to create posts

The court followed the settled principle that the constitution of cadres, creation/abolition of posts, and framing of promotion criteria are matters of State policy within the exclusive discretion of the executive, as held in P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad (2003) 2 SCC 632

It applied the rule from Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association (2023) 19 SCC 482, which stipulates that file notings are merely opinions and do not constitute a decision of the Government

Furthermore, it relied on V.K. Naswa v. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012) 2 SCC 542, asserting that courts cannot legislate or direct the legislature to enact laws in a specific manner

The court reasoned that the scope of judicial review in administrative policy matters is extremely narrow

It held that prescribing qualifications and avenues of promotion is a complex task for expert bodies, and courts should not substitute their views for those of the State

The court noted that departmental recommendations (Annexure P-13) do not bind the competent authority until a final decision is taken

It found the State’s rejection of the post-creation proposal to be valid and non-arbitrary because legal requirements were already being met by an appointed District Attorney

Additionally, since the petitioners already had established channels of promotion within their own respective cadres—evidenced by Petitioner No. 2’s promotion to Superintendent—they could not claim a right to be included in a different, non-existent feeder category

The court affirmed that the State’s decision to reject the creation of Law Officer posts was a legitimate exercise of administrative discretion and did not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution

No costs were awarded