Holding

A State policy issued by circular cannot supersede statutory recruitment rules; appointments made without complying with those rules are ultra vires and cannot be regularised.

Summary

The Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board (the Board) engaged several workers on a contractual basis for water and sewerage schemes and later terminated their services. The workers filed writ petitions seeking regularisation of their employment under a policy scheme issued by the State of Punjab. The High Court directed the Board to reinstate and regularise the workers, relying on the State's circular. The Supreme Court held that a policy decision issued by a circular is not a statutory instrument and cannot override the Board's statutory recruitment rules or the constitutional provisions of equality and merit. Consequently, appointments made without complying with the statutory rules are ultra vires and cannot be regularised. The Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeals, without awarding costs.

Issues considered

Whether a policy decision/circular issued by the State of Punjab for regularisation of contract workers is binding on a statutory board.
Whether such a policy can override statutory recruitment rules and constitutional provisions under Articles 12, 14, 16, 162 and 309 of the Constitution.
Whether appointments made without following the statutory recruitment procedure can be regularised.
Whether the High Court erred in directing regularisation based solely on the State's policy.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 162, s. Article 309

Subjects

regularisationstatutory boardrecruitment rulesconstitutional lawArticle 162ultra virespolicy circularemployment law

Judgment

PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD A
v.
RANJODH SINGH AND ORS.

DECEMBER 6, 2006

(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] B

Service /aw-Regularisation-Employee engaged on contractual basis
by statutory bodies-Regularisation, claim of, on basis of purported scheme
of regularisation by State-Grant of, by High Court-Correctness of-Held: C
Statutory bodies are bound to apply Recruitment Rules laid down under
statutory rules and also constitutional provisions being a 'State'-Policy
a
decision cannot be adopted by means of circular letter since it is not a
statutory instrument-Any departmental letter cannot prevail over statutory
rule and constitutional provisions-Policy decision adopted in terms ofArticle D
162 would be void-High Court issued directions on basis of the purported
policy decision of State-Purported directions of the State sought to supercede
statutory rules, thus bad in law-Appointment made without following the
procedure ultra vires-Thus, order of High Court set aside-Constitution of
India-Articles 12, 14, 16 and 16?.
E
Appellant-Board undertook certain work and engaged respondents
on contractual basis. Thereafter, appellant terminated the services of the
respondents and also rejected their prayer for regularisation in terms of
the scheme framed for regularisation by the State. Respondent filed writ
11c!:tion seeking implementation of the scheme by appellant and
regularisation of their services. High Court directed the appellant to re- F
instate the respondents in service and regularise their services. Hence the
present appeals.

Appellant-Board contended that the purported scheme of State of
Punjab cannot be said to be applicable to the employees. G
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. A statutory board is an autonomous body. Nothing has
been brought to notice to show that under the statute any direction iggued
by the State shall be binding on it. The State may have some control with H
317
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A regard to recruitment of employees of local authorities, but such control
must be exercised by the State strictly in terms of the provisions of the
Act. The statutory bodies are bound to apply the rules of recruitment laid
down under statutory rules. They being 'States' within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are bound to implement the
B constitutional scheme of equality. Neither the statutory bodies can refuse
to fulfil such constitutional duty, nor the State can issue any direction
contrary to or inconsistent with the constitutional principles adumbrated
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The purported directions of
the State were otherwise bad in law in so far as thereby the statutory rules
were sought to be superceded. A circular letter furthermore is not a
C statutory instrument. It was not even issued by the State in exercise of
the power under Article 162 of the Constitution. Even a scheme issued
under Article 162 of the Constitution, would not prevail over statutory
rules. High Court did not address.itself to these questions.1322-D-H]

Pankaj Gupta and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors., [2004] 8 SCC 353 -
D
referred to.

1.2. Once it is held that the terms and conditions of service including
the recruitment of employees were to be governed either by the statutory
rules or rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
E of India, it must necessarily be held that any policy decision adopted by
the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution
of India would be illegal and without jurisdiction. The distinction between
irregularity and illegality is explicit. 1323-H; 324-A-B]

Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors., [2004) 7 SCC
F 112; Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors., [20061 4
SCC 1; National Fetilizers Ltd and Ors. v. Somvir Singh, (2006] 5 SCC 493;
State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey and Ors., (2006)
8 SCC 67 and State ofMP. & Ors. v. La/it Kumar Verma, (2006] 12 SCALE
642, referred to.
G
1.3. High Court did not issue a writ of mandamus on arriving at a
findmg that the respondents had a legal right in relation to their claim
for regularisation, which it was obligated to do. It proceeded to issue the
directions only on the basis of the purported policy decision adopted by
the State. It failed to notice that a policy decision cannot be adopted by
H means of a circular letter and, even a policy decision adopted in terms of
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD v. RANJODH SINGH [S.B. SINHA, J.J 319

Article 162 of the Constitution of India in that behalf would be void. Any A
departmental letter or executive instruction cannot prevail over statutory
rule and constitutional provisions. Thus, any appointment, made without
following the procedure would be ultra vires. (327-E-Gl

Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workman, Indian Drugs and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [2006) 12 SCALE 1; Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur B
v. Om Prakash Dubey, Civil Appeal No.5607/2006 decided by Supreme
Court on 5.12.2006; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Lakhwinder Singh and Ors.,
Civil Appeal No.7995 of2002 decided by S.C. on 7.9.2006; ChiefCommissioner
ofIncome Tax, Bhopal and Ors. v. Mis. Leena Jain and Ors., [2006) 12 SCALE
411, referred to. C
1.4. The submission that as the respondents are qualified to hold the
posts and they had been continuously working for a long time, this Court
may not interfere with the impugned judgment, cannot be accepted.
[328-C-DJ D
1.5. It was submitted that the respondents were employed on daily rated
basis and their services were transferred to the Corporation. No such case
was made out and in any event, as and when the respondents themselves agreed
to be appointed on a contractual basis by appellant-Board, at this juncture
they cannot be heard to say that the purported transfer Qf their services by E
the State of Punjab to the appellant-Board was illegal. Even no such case has
been made out in the special leave petition. (328-D-Ej

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5632 of2006.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.5.2005 of the High Court F
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 13897/2004.

Varuna Bhandari Gusain, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal and Ruchi Kohli
for the Appellant.

M.R. Rajendran Nair, Anurag Singh, Narender Yadav, Mushtaq Ahmad, G
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sanjay Singh, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Jasbir Singh Malik,
T.S. Gujral and Kamakshi S. Mehlwal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A These appeals involve the question of applicability of a purported
policy decision of the State as regards regularisation of services of the
employees of Appellant-Board.

It is a local authority. It undertakes execution of schemes of various
nature including laying down of sewerage lines, water supply etc. for
B Municipalities, Municipal Corporations and Improvement Trusts. For each
scheme, estimates are prepared and expenses therefor are borne by the
principal.

Respondents in these appeals were engaged on contract basis in two
C different schemes, i.e., for maintenance of water supply and sewerage lines
for Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and for maintenance of tube wells
installed under URP project for Mu.nicipal Corporation, Hoshiarpur
respectively. Their services were terminated. Respondents prayed for
regularisation of the services. The said prayer was rejected by the appellant
in terms of the scheme framed scheme for regularisation by the State of
D Punjab on 23.1.2001 and 28.3.2003.

Writ petitions were filed by the respondents, inter a/ia, for issuance of
a Writ in the nature Mandamus directing the respondents therein 'including
appellant-Board to implement the said scheme of regulation of their services
E and setting aside the orders rejecting such prayers made on their behalf. By
reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the writ petitions
directing the appellant to reinstate the respondents in service with all
consequential benefits. Appellant was also directed to regularise their services.

Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, learned counsel appearing for the
F appellant would submit that the purported scheme of State of Punjab cannot
be said to be applicable to the employees of the appellant-board as would
appear from a copy of a letter dated 14.10.2002 issued by the Additional
Director, Local Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, which is in the following
terms-
G "OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOSHIARPUR
Receipt No.570 dated 22.10.2002
To
The Executive Officer,
Municipal Council, Hoshiarpur.
Memo No.AS2-DSS(5-A)2002/23660
H
Dated 14.10.2002
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARDv. RANJODH SINGH [S.B. SINHA, .I.) 3 21

Subject : To appoint employees working under URP scheme on the A
regular basis.

With reference to your Memo No.530 dated 7.6.2001 on the subject
cited above.

You are hereby informed that in the abse11ce of instructions to B
regularize the services of those employees who are working on contract
basis, the Director, Local Govt. Punjab after thoughtful consideration,
has filed the case.

Sd/-

Additional Director"
c
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the
impugned judgment.

Before we proceed to consider the rival contentions of the parties, we D
would notice the purported scheme of regularisation issued by the State of
Punjab. We may also notice that the said purported scheme was communicated
by a letter addressed to all Heads of Departments of the State of Punjab,
Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, all the Commissioners
and Deputy Commissioners and all the Corporations and Boards in the Sta~e
of Punjab. In the letter dated 23.1.2001, it was stated: E
"(iv) For accommodating work charged/daily wage/other category
workers as per the above policy against the existing vacancies
the existing instructions requiring permission of the DOP and
FD for filling up the· vacancies would not apply. Wherever for
the absorption/regularization of workers as per the above policy F
any Department's own Recruitment Rules come in the way, such
provisions of the Recruitment Rules will stand relaxed."

By reason of letter dated 28.3.2003, it was clarified :

"Subject : Review of policy regarding regularization of services of G
Work charge/Daily Wage Workers.

Regarding the above mentioned subject, I am directed to invite
your attention to letter No.l 1/34/2000-4PP. 3/1301-02 dated 23.1.200 I
and to write that as per the contents of Para No.4 of this letter, it is
provided that the work charge/daily wage workers who have completed H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. lO S.CR.

A three years service, their services be regularized and period of four
months was specified for this purpose i.e. this exercise was to be
completed by 22.5.2001.

2. Certain Departments have sought clarification from this Department
that th.e work charge/daily wage workers/employees, whose services
B could not be regularized as per the provision of para No.4 of the
above said letter due to any reason, whether their services can be
regularized r.ow or not though they fulfill the requisite conditions.
This matter has been considered by the Govt. and it has been decided
that the services of such work charged/daily wage workers/employees
whose services could not be regularized within the specified period
c as per the instructions contained in Para No.4 of letter dated 23. I .200 I;
their services may be considered for regularization now upto 30th
June, 2003. It is worth mentioning here that in case any of the
Departm.ent failed to take necessary action in the matter within the
period specified above, then the concerned Administration .Secretary/
-
D Head of the Department shall be held responsible."

A statutory board is an autonomous body. Nothing has been brought.to
our notice to show that under the statute any direction issued by the State
shall be binding on it. The State may have some control with regard to
recruitment of employees of local authorities, but such control must be
E exercised by the State strictly in terms of the provisions of the Act. The
statutory bodies are bound to apply the rules of recruitment laid down under
statutory rules. They being 'States' within the meaning ofArticle 12 of the
Constitution of India, are bound to implement the constitutional scheme of
equality. Neither the statutory bodies can refuse to fulfil sue~ constitutional
F duty, nor the State can issue any direction contrary to or inconsistent with the
constitutional principles adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. The purported directiOns of the State were otherwise
bad in law in so far as thereby the stattitory rules were sought to be superceded.
A circular letter furthermore is not a statutory instrument. It was not even
issued by the State in exercise of the power under Article 162 of the
G Constitution of India. Even a scheme issued under Article 162 of the
Constitution of India, would not prevail over statutory rules.

The High Court, unfortunately did hot address itself to these questions.
High Court's attention was drawn to a decision of this Court in Pankaj Gupta
& Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., [2004] 8 SCC 353, wherein it was held : ·
H
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD v. RANJODH SINGH [S.B. SINHA, J.] 323

"We heard the appellants' counsel and counsel for the A
respondents. The counsel. for the appellants contended that the
appointments were made pursuant to a government -decision and the
names of these appellants were recommended by various Members of
the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. Jt was argued
that the heads of various departments were competent to make
appointments to Class IV posts and, therefore, the appointments of B
these appellants are legal. We are unable to accept this contention.
Admittedly, these posts were not notified by the Government. There
was no publication of a notification inviting applications for filling up
these posts. The names of these appellants were recommended by the
Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly for C
appointment. There is no evidence to show that any criteria approved
by the Government or any rules of recruitment were followed while
making these appointments. It may be true that the appellants may
have been habitants of rural areas and there was no adequate
representation for this rural population in government jobs. But the
Government or the heads of various departments could have formulated D
and resorted to some rational modalities approved under the rules of
recruitment to see that rural population also got adequate
representation in public employment. But the same could be done
within the constitutional limitations."

But the High Court unfortunately failed to consider the ratio of the said E
decision in its proper perspective.

In regard to the contention that the workmen had been working for
years and many of them had already crossed the.age fixed for entry to the
Government service, as such they are entitled to regularisation, it was opined: p
"No person illegally appointed or appointed without following
the procedure prescribed under the law, is entitled to claim that he
should be continued in service. In this situation, we see no reason to
interfere with the impugned order. The appointees have no right to
regularisation in the service because of the erroneous procedure G
adopted by the authority concerned in appointing such persons."

The dicta of said decision, however, was not followed by the High
Court.

Once it is held that the terms and conditions of service including the H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. IO S.C.R.

A recruitment of employees were to be governed either by the statutory rules .
or rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India,
it must necessarily be held that any policy decision adopted by the State in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India
would be illegal and without jurisdiction. In A. Umarani v. Registrar,
B Cooperative Societies & Ors., [2004] 7 SCC 112, a Three Judge Bench of
this Court has opined: l-
•
"No regularisation is, thus, permissible in exercise of the statutory
power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution if the
appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules."

c It was further held:

"It is trite that flppointments cannot be made on political
considerations and in violation of the government directions for
reduction of establishment expenditure or a prohibition on the filling
up of vacant posts or creating new posts including regularisation of
D daily-waged employees. (See Municipal Corpn., Bilaspur v. Veer Singh
Rajput)."

The question came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of
this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., [2006]
E 4 sec 1, wherein it was held that no person who was temporarily or casually
been employed could be directed to be continued permanently. It was opined
that by doing so it would be creating another mode of public employment
which is not permissible.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however,
p placed strong reliance on paragraphs 15, 16 and 53 of the said judgment to
contend that the Constitution Bench itself directed the Central or State
Government to consider and adopt a one-time measure for regularisation of
services of the employees whose appointments were irregular. For the sake
of clarity, we would reproduce the said paragraphs :

G "15. Even at the threshold, it is necessary to keep in mind the
distinction between regularisation and conferment of permanence in
service jurisprudence. In State of Mysore v. S. V. Narayanappa, this
Court stated that it was a misconception to consider that regularisation
meant permanence. In R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah this Court
dealt with an argument that regularisation would mean conferring the
H
.. PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD v. RANJODH SINGH [S.B. SINHA, J.] 325

quality of permanence on the appointment. This Court stated: (SCC A
pp.416-17, para 26)

"Counsel on behalf of the respondent contended that regularisation
would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment
whereas counsel on behalf of the State contended that regularisation
did dot mean permanence but that it was a case of regularisation of B
the rules under Article 309. Both the contentions are fallacious. If the
appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation
of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularised.
Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the
power and province of the authority but there has been some non- C
compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root
of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of
recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce
a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the
effect of setting at naught the rules."
D
16. In B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, this Court clearly
held that the words "regular" or "regularisation" do not connote
permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the
nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone
any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects
as are attributable to methodology followed in making the E
appointments. This Court emphasised that when rules framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution are in force, no regularisation is
permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government
under. Article 162 of the Constitution in contravention of the rules.
These decisions and the principles recognised therein have not been
dissented to by this Court and on principle, we see no reason not to
F
accept the proposition as enunciated in the above decisions. We have,
therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis
that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one
of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the
root of the process, can be regularised and that it alone can be G
regularised and granting permanence of employment is a totally
different concept and cannot be equated with regularisation.

53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where
irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V.
H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. IO S.C.R.

A Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred
to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned
vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued
to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders
of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the
services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in
B the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases
abovereferred to and in the Light of this judgment. In that context, the
Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities
should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of
such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more
c in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts
or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be
filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are
being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six
months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any
D already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this
judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the
constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those
not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

E A combined reading of the aforementioned paragraphs would clearly
indicate that what the Constitution Bench had in mind in directing
regularisation was in relation to such appointments, which were irregular in
nature and not illegal ones.

Distinction between irregularity and illegality is explicit.· It has been so
p pointed out in National Fetilizers Ltd & Ors. v. Somvir Singh, [2006] 5 SCC
493, in the following terms:

"The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents that the appointments were irregular and not illegal, cannot
be accepted for more than one reason. They were appointed only on
G the basis of their applications. The Recruitment Rules were not
followed. Even the Selection Committee had not been properly
constituted. In view of the ban on employment, no recruitment was
permissible in law. The reservation policy adopted by the appellant
had not been maintained. Even cases of minorities had not been given
due consideration.
H
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD v. RANJODH SINGH [S.B. SINHA, J.] 327

The Constitution Bench thought of directing regularisation of the A
services only of those employees whose appointments were irregular

- as explained in State of Mysore v. S. V. Narayanappa, R.N.
Nanjundappa, v. T. Thimmiah, and B.N Nagarajan v. State of
Karnataka, wherein this Court observed: [Umadevi (3) case l, SCC
p.24, para 16]
B
"16 . In B. N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, this Court clearly
held that the words 'regular' or 'regularisation' do not connote
permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the
nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone
any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects C
as are attributable to methodology followed in making the
appointments."

Judged by the standards laid down by this Court in the
aforementioned decisions, the appointments of the respondents are
illegal. They do not, thus, have any legal right to continue in service." D
{See also State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey
& Ors.,[2006] 8 SCC 67 and State of MP. & Ors. v. La/it Kumar Verma, [2006]
12 SCALE 642.}

In the instant case, the High Court did not issue a writ of mandamus E
on arriving at a finding that the respondents had a legal right in relation to
their claim for regularisation, which it was obligated to do. It proceeded to
issue the directions only on the basis of the purported policy decision adopted
by the State. It failed to notice that a policy decision cannot be adopted by
means of a circular letter and, as noticed hereinbefore, even a policy decision
adopted in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India in that behalf F
would be void. Any departmental letter or executive instruction cannot prevail
over statutory rule and constitutional provisions. Any appointment, thus, made
without following the procedure would be ultra vires.

This Court, recently in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. G
Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, [2006] 12 SCALE I, opined
that rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the Courts/Tribunals cannot
direct regularisation of temporary appointees de hors the rules, nor can it
direct continuation of service of a temporary employee (whether called a
casual, ad hoc or daily rate employee) or payment of regular salaries to them.
{See also Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur v. Om Prakash Dubey, [Civil H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A
Appeal No.5607/2006 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 5065 of 2006, disposed of on 5th
December, 2006].}

Our attention was drawn to an order of a Division Bench of this Court
dated 7th September, 2006 in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Lakhwinder Singh &
B Ors., [Civil Appeal No.7995 of2002], wherein the matters had been remitted
for consideration of the matters afresh in the light of the decisions of this
Court referred to therein. Similar order appears to have been passed in Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal & Ors. v. Mis. Leena Jain & Ors.,
[2006] 12 SCALE 411.

c We are not persuaded to do so as the decisions of this Court stare
on our face. We cannot ignore the same. It was faintly suggested that as the
respondents are qualified to hold the posts and they had been continuously
working for a long time, this Court may not interfere with the impugned
judgment. On the face of a catena of decisions of this Court, we cannot
D accept the said submission.

An endeavour was made also to submit that the respondents were
employed on daily rated basis and their services were transferred to the
Corporation. No such case was made out and in any event, as and when the
respondents themselves agreed to be appointed on a contractual basis by the
E appellant-Board, at this juncture they cannot be heard to say that the purported
transfer of their services by the State of Punjab to the appellant-Board was
illegal. Even no such case has been made out in the special leave petition.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained. They are set aside accordingly. Appeals are allowed. However, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. , .

NJ. Appeals allowed.