Holding

The State’s directions under Section 78‑A were not a question of policy and encroached on the Board’s exclusive appointment power under Section 15, the 1984 panel expired after one year, and the Board must fill Junior Engineer vacancies per Rule 7 without age restriction for those in the panel.

Summary

The appellants, who were appointed as Operators in the Bihar State Electricity Board after failing to secure Junior Electrical Engineer posts in 1984, claimed that the State Government’s directions under Section 78‑A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 to appoint and absorb them as Junior Engineers were binding. The Board argued that its appointment power under Section 15 was exclusive and that the State’s directions were not a question of policy. The Supreme Court held that the State’s directions were not on a question of policy and therefore encroached upon the Board’s statutory power, that the 1984 merit panel expired after one year and could not confer a right thereafter, and that the undertaking given by the appellants did not bar their future consideration. Accordingly, the Board must fill Junior Engineer vacancies in accordance with Rule 7 of its Cadre Rules, i.e., 75 % by direct recruitment and 25 % by absorption, and must issue a fresh advertisement without applying an age bar to those in the 1984 panel. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The State Government's direction under Section 78‑A is a question of policy and thus binding on the Board
The Board's power under Section 15 to appoint staff is exclusive and not subject to State direction
Whether the undertaking given by candidates when appointed as Operators precludes future claims for Junior Engineer posts under Article 16
The validity and legal effect of the 1984 merit panel after its one‑year expiry
The requirement to fill Junior Engineer vacancies according to Rule 7 (75 % direct recruitment, 25 % absorption) and the applicability of age bar

Legislation cited

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948s. 15, s. 78-A, s. 79(c)

Subjects

recruitmentpublic service appointmentstatutory authoritySection 78-ASection 15Article 16merit panelvacancy fillingRule 775-25 ratio

Judgment

A RAKESH RANJAN VERMA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
-""
APRIL 10, 1992

B [N. M. KASLIWAL AND R. M. SAHAI, JJ.]
,..,
E/ectncity (Supply) Act, 1948: Sections 15 and 78-A.

Bihar State Electricity Board Junior Electrical Enginee~ (General)
c Cadre Rules, 1982-Rule 7-As amended by Notification dated 14.10.1988. __..
Electricity Board-Recruitment of Junior Electrical Engineers-Panel- -<
Appointment of some candidates in order of merit-But candidates lower in
merit could not be appointed due to non-availability of vacancies-Appoint-
ment of such candidates on the lower post of Operator-Undertaking by them
•
D that they will not claim in future the post of Junior Electrical Enginee,--Sub-
sequent claim by such candidates and direction by State Government under
Section 78-A to appoint and absorb them in the post of Electrical En-
gineer-Held direction given by State was encroachment on Boards power
under Section JS-Undertaking given by candidates would net estop them
from being considered for future posts-Direction to fill the posts in the ratio
E
o/75% by direct recruitment and 25% by absorption as contemplated under
Rule 7.

SeTVice Law-Recruitment-Panel-Filling of vacancies-Mere exist-
ence of vacancies is not sufficient-Employer can decide how many posts are
F to be filled.

The Bihar State Electricity Board invited applications for.the posts
of Junior Electrical Engineers and on the basis of a written test and oral
test prepared a panel of 790 candidates in the year 1984 which was valid J
for one year. Out of this panel, 447 candidates were appointed according .,,
G to merit but the remaining posts could not be filled due to non-availabllty
of posts. Since the position oUhe appellants was lowerer)n the merit list
they were also not appointed. However, they were appointed against the
vacant posts of Operators, for which the requisite qualifications was
Diploma in Engineering, on their giving a specific un«!ertaking that they ·~

H would not make any claim for appointment as Junior Electrical Engineer.
516
R.R.VERMA~STA1E 517

• B~ its advertisment dated 29.7.89 the Electricity Board invited applications A
for"the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers which fell vacant later. The
appel~nts made their claim for appointment as Junior Electrical En-
gineers and the State Government issued instructions under Section 78-A
of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 to the Electricity Board to appoint and
absorb them.
B

." The Electricity Board failed to comply with the State Government's
direction and the appellants filed petitions in the High Court of Patna for

--
quashing1he advertisement dated 29.7.89 and for a direction to appoint
' and absorb them in the vacant substantive posts of Junior Electrical

r Engineers. The High Court dismissed the petitions holding that (i) the c
power under Section 78-A is to be exercised by State Government only when .
some questions of policy are involved and it cannot be exercised for
~ directing that a particular individual or a group of persons be appointed
as officers of the Board and; the Board has power to make appointments
under Section 15 and it was not bound to follow the directions of the State
Government because it would amount to encroachment on its power under
D
Section 15; (ii) the appellants were appointed as Operators on their
undertaking and at a later stage they could not claim appointment against
the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers; (iii) in view of the amended rule
7 of the Bihar State Electricity Board Junior Electrical Engineer (General)
Cadre Rules, 1982 the appellants could not be absorbed without considera- E
tion of inter-se merit by Selection Committee.

In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants
that (i) the direction issued by the State Government under Section 78-A
~
of the Act was on questions of policy and was binding on the Electricity F
Board; (ii) the undertaking given by the appellants cannot deprive them
from being appointed on future vacancies and the undertaking was viola·
tive of Ar:ticle 16 of the Constitution; {iii) the posts of Junior Electrical
!I -\'. Engineers were vacant even before the expiry of panel and the Board
should have absorbed the appellants against the aforesaid posts.
G
On behalf of the Electricity Board it was contended that (i) under
section 78-A of the Act the State can issue directions only on questions of
policy and it cannot direct the Board to make appointments dehors the
$ Rules; (ii) the panel for Junior Electrical Engineers was valid for one year
aad the appellants had no legal right to be appointed on the basis of their H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A inclusion in the expired panel.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1. Section 78 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 clearly lays
down that the Board shall be guided by such directions on questions of
B policy as may be given to it by the State Government. In the circumstances
of the case the directions given by the State Gover-0ment cannot be con-
sidered as directions on any questions of policy. Therefore, the view taken
by the High Court that the direction given by the State Government to the
Electricity Board to appoint the appellants as Junior Engineers does not
c involve any matter of policy and was an encroachment on the powers of
the Board under Section 15 of the Act is correct. [524D-H, 525A]

2. The life of the panel was one year which came to an end after one
year and that being so no right can be claimed by the appellants after one
year on the basis of inclusion of their names in the panel list for the posts
D of Junior Electrical Engineers. But the giving of any unde11aking cannot
estop the appeHants from being considered for th~ future vacancies of
Junior Electrical Engineers and the appellants cannot be deprived ror al!
times to come. Therefore, the B<>ard cannot deny the right of the appellants
for appointment on tbe posts of Junior Electrical Engineers sought to be
E filled on the ground tha~ they had given any undertaking at the time of
their appointment as Operatars. [52SA-C, 526B]

3. As contemplated in Rule 7 of the Bihar State Eiedricity Board
Junior Electrical Engineer (General) Cadre Rules, 1982 read with modifica-
iion made by Notification dated 14.10.1988 issued under Section 79(c) of the
F Act, tile Board has to make appo!ntmeuts for the posts Qf Junior Electrical
Engineers both by way of direct recruitment from Diploma holders in
Electrical Engineering and by absorption of the Board's employees serving
on lower posts in the ratio of 75 : 25 and the appeHants would also have a
right to be considered for such appointments. [525C, 5268-C]

G 3.1. Accordingly the Eiectricity Board is directed to issue a fresh
- advertisement for fiiling of the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers having
fallen due and to make appointments in the ratio t>f 75 per cent by direct
recruitment and 25 per cent by absorption as contemplated under Rule 7.
Age bar should not be considered 1;1s disqualification in respect of all those
H persons who were included in the panel of 1984. [526E-F]
R.R. VERMA v. STATE [.KASLIWAL, J.] 519

4. It is no doubt correct that vacancies in the general and GTO cadres A
of Junior Electrical Engineers were existing when the panel was operative
but it lies with the Board to decide as to how many posts are required to be
filled. Merely existence of vacancies alone is not sufficient until the Board
considered it necessary as to how many posts were required to be filled 'in
any year in order to carry out its functions and duties. (527A-B]
B
A.M. Mani v. Kera/a State Electricity Board, A.l.R. 1968 Kerala 76; The
And.lira Pradesh State Electricity Board and Anr. v. N. Ramachandr:a Rao
and Anr., A.I.R. 1969 AP 328, cited.

~- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1627 & C
1628 of 1~92.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.90 of the_ Patna High
Court of Jundicature in C.W.J.C. No. 7348 & Civil Writ Petition No. 7183
of 1989.
D
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Anil Jha and Raju Rama Chandran for the Appel-
lants.

K.K. Venugopal, P.P. Tripathi and Pramod Swarup for the Respon-
dents.
E
The Judgment of this Court was delivered by

KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.

Appeal in SLP No. 3859 of 1991 arises out of the judgment of the
Patna High Court dated 12.12.1990 in Writ Petition No. 7348 of 1989 and F
Appeal in SLP No. 7642 of 1991 arises out of the judgment dated
12.12.1990 given by the Patna High Court in Writ Petition No. 7183 of
1989. Both the above appeals are disposed of by one single order as both
arise in identical circumstances and are intimately connected with each
other.
G
Rakesh Ranjan Verma and 120 other persons working as Operators
in the Bihar State Electricity Board filed a Writ Petition No. 7348 of 1989
in the High Court for quashing the advertisement dated 29.7.1989 issued
by the .Bihar State Electricity Board (in short 'the Board') for filling up
vacancies of Junior Electrical· ~ngineers by direct recruitment and for a H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A direction to the Board to comply with the directions of the State Govern-
ment dated 18.7.1988 and 5.5.1989 to appoint/absorb the petitioners in the
vacant substantive posts of Junior Electrical Engineers.

The Board issued an advertisement No.1/83 dated 26.5.1983 in
newspapers inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment
B
to 447 posts of Junior Electrical Engineers. The petitioners applied for the
said posts of Junior Electrical Engineers. On 22.10.1983 a competitive
written test was held and 840 candidates including the petitioners were
declared successful in the written test. The successful candidates were
called for an interview which was held on different dates in the year 1984.
c On the basis of the above written and oral test a panel of 790 candidates
was prepared. Out of the aforesaid panel, 447 candidates, according to the
merit list were given appointment on the posts of Junior Electrical En-
gineers. As no posts of Junior Electrical Engineers were available for the
remaining 343 candidates which included the petitioners, they could not be
D .appointed on the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers. As number of posts
of Operators were also vacant and for which the requisite qualifications
was Diploma in Electrical Engineering, it was, therefore, decided that the
vacant posts of Operators may also be filled up by such candidates who
were willing to opt for that employment but would not claim the post of
Junior Engineer on the ground that they had applied for appointment to
E the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioners opted for the posts of
Operators with a specific undertaking that they would not claim for the
posts of Junior Electrical Engineers by virtue of their having applied for
appointment to the posts of Junior Engineers and having technical
qualifications. The petitioners subsequently made claim before the Board
F anci the State Government that they should be absorbed against the vacant
posts of Junior Electrical Engineers on the basis of the merit list and panel
prepared in the year 1984. The State Government having convinced with
the claim of the petitioners by communication dated 18.7.1988 wrote to the
Board that as the petitioners had appeared in the written test for being
G appointed against the posts of Junior Electrical Enginet;:rs, any undertaking
given by them on the ev~ of their appointments as Operators was an
unreasonable restriction, as such they may be absorbed against the posts
of Junior Electrical Engineers, which became available later during the
years 1984 and 1985. It was mentioned in the above communication that
the said direction was being issued in exercise of the power under Section
H 78-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. (hereinafter referred to as 'the
R.R. VERMA v. STATE [KASLIWAL, J.) 521
~.
Act'). Another communication of a similar nature was issued by the State A
Government on 5.5.1989 reiterating the earlier direction given vide letter
dated 18.7.1988. The Board did not comply with the ·aforesaid direction of
the State Government as such the petitioners filed a Writ Petition in the
High Court with the prayer to quash the advertisement dated 29.7.1989 and
to appoint/absorb the petitioners to the vacant substantive posts of Junior
B
Electrical Engineers.

The stand taken by the Board in the counter affidavit before the High

-- ~
Court was that only 447 posts of Junior Electrical Engineers were adver-
tised for appointment and according to the merit list 447 posts were filled
and the position of the petitioners being lower in the merit list, they could c
not be appointed. Thereafter, on the recommendation of a Committee, the
"'-' petitioners were appointed against the posts of Operators in Thermal
Power Stations with a specific condition that they shall not later make any
claim for appointment as Junior Electrical Engineer. When the petitioners
accepted the said conditi.on, they were appointed as Operators. The
____, D
paneVmerit list which was prepared in the year 1984 lost its validity on
13.9.1985 after the lapse of one year. The posts of Junior Electrical En-
gineers which fell vacant later have been advertised by the advertisement
dated 29.7.1989 and fresh applications have been invited to fill the posts i.n
accordance with the Rules. It was further stated by the Board that the State
Government had no power to give such direction under Section 78-A of E
~
the Act. The Board itself has power to make appointments of officers and
employees under Section 15 of the Act.

_. .. The High Court held that the Board is a statutory authority con-
stituted by the State Government under Section 5 of the Act. Section 15 of 'F
the Act in clear and unambiguous words vests power. in the Board to
appoint its officers and employees as may be required to enable the Board
fo carry out the functions under the Act. The appointment of the Secretary
of the Board alone is subject to the approval of the State Government. So
far as other officers and employees of the Board are concerned, no
approval is required to ·be taken from the State Government. The High G
Court further held that the power under Section 78-A of the Act is to be
exercised by the State Government only when some questions of policy are
.~ involved. Such power is not to be exercised for directing that particular
individual or ~ group of persons be appointed as officers of the Board. The
Board being an autonomous authority clothed with the power to make H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A appointments of its officers and employees under Section 15 of the Act is
not bound to follow the directions given by the State Government which
amounted to .an encroachment on the power of the Board vested under
Section 15 of the Act. The High Court in taking the aforesaid view placed
reliance on a Full Bench authority of the Kerala High Court in A.M. Mani
v. Kera/a State Electricity Board, AIR 1968 Kerala P.76 and a Division
B Bench authority of Andhra Pradesh High Court in The Andhra Pradesh
State Electricity Board and Another v. N. Ramachandra Rao and Another,
AIR 1969 Andhra Pradesh P.328. The High Court also held that whenever
vacancies exist in public offices an opportunity should be given to all
persons eligible on the date such posts are to be filled up, for being
c considered for appointment against such posts. Neither any assurance was
given nor it was represented to the petitioners that later they shall be
appointed or absorbed against the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers. On
the other hand, they were appointed as Operators on undertaking being
given by them individually that at later stage they shall not claim for being
D appointed against the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers. The High Court
further held that under Rule 7 of the Bihar State Electricity Board Junior
Electrical Engineer (General) Cadre Rules, 1982 as .amended by a new
Rule 7 by Notification dated 14.10.1988 issued under Section 79 (c) of the
Act a Selection Committee has to consider the cases of Diploma holders
who had acquired the Diploma before joining the lower posts under the
E Board or have acquired Diploma while in the service of the Board for being
appointed against the p~sts of Junior Electrical Engineers. In view of this
amended Rule which had come into force on 14.10.1988, now there was no
question of absorption of the petitioners outright without consideration of
inter se merit by the Selection Committee. The High Court in the view taken
above passed the following operative order : · .

"For the reasons mentioned above, it is not possible to hold
that the two communications dated 18.7.1988 and 5.5.1989 shall
be deemed to be a direction on question of policy by the State
Government so that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus
G directing the Board to comply with those Directions. It is also
not possible for this Court to issue a direction to the Board to
absorb the petitioners straightway against the pc:>sts of Junior
Electrical Engineers : of course, it will be open to the Board
to· consider the cases of the petitioners along with others for
H appointments to the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers in
R.R. VERMA v. STATE [KASLIWAL, J.] 523

....., accordance with the new Rule 7 referred to above. A
This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. In the cir-
cumstances of the case, there shall be no order for costs."

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
perused the record. Dr. Chitale, Learned Senior Advocate appearing on
B
behalf of the appellants contended that the direction issued by the State
Government vide letters dated 18.7.1988 and 5.5.1989 under Section 78-A
of the Act was binding on the Board. It was contended that the directions
__ ;;.-,... given in the aforesaid letters was on questions of policy and the State
Government was fully authorised to give such directions to the Board in c
.r
exercise of its powers conferred under Section 78-A of the Act. It was
further submitted that the appellants were selected for the posts of Junior
').--
Electrical Engineers after passing the written and oral examination and
were kept in the merit/panel list of 1984. It was contended that merely
because the appellants gave an undertaking while being appointed as
D
Operators that they would not lay any claim on the posts of Junior
Electrical Engineers, cannot deprive them from being appointed on future
vacancies of Junior Electrical Engineers. The undertaking was uncon-
scionable and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. It was submitted
that some of the appellants have become over age and it would not be
possible for the appellants to compete with the fresh incumbents in case E
~ the posts are filled by direct recruitment. It was contended that all the
appellants are Diploma holders and have additional advantage of ex-
perienc-e :m -the post of Operators and in these circumstances the appel-

-- lants should be absorbed against the vacant posts of Junior Electrical
Engineers without competing with the direct recruits. F

O~ the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the Board sup-
ported the judgment of the High Court and contended that the panel of
1984 exhausted after one year and thereafter the appellants had no right
or claim whatsoever on the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers to be filled G
now through advertisement issued on 29.7.1989. It was further submitted
that the Board had shown a gesture of goodwill by giving appointment to
the appellants on the post of Operators and now the appellants cannot put
forth a fogal right for being appointed as Junior Electrical Engineers after
1 a period of more than 4 years on the basis of inclusion in the panel of 1984.
They have to compete "With other fresh competitors who have become tt·
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992} 2 S.C.R.

A eligible for such posts to be filled by direct recruitment according to the ~
Rules. It has been submitted that Section 78-A of the Act empowers the
State Government to issue directions on questions of policy and no direc-
tion under such power can be given to the Board to make appointment of
the appellants dehors the Rules.

B . Section 78-A of the Act reads as under :-

.. "Directic~_ns by the State Government. - (1) In the discharge of
its f~nctions, the Board sh_all be guided by such directions on
questions of policy as ma~ be given to it by the State Govern-
ment.
c
(2) If any dispute arises betweetr' the Board and the State
Government as to whether a question is or is not a question of
policy, it shall be referred to the Authority whose decision
thereon shall be final."
D The above provision clearly lays down that the Board shall be guided
by such directions on questions of policy as may be given to it by the State
Government. In the circumstances of the case before us the directions
given under letters dated 18.7.1988 and 5.5.1989 cannot be considered as
directions on any questions of policy. So far as the appoint/nent of staff is
E concerned, Section 15 empowers the Board to appoint such officers and
employees as may be required to enable the Board to carry out its functions
under the Act. Section 15 of the Act reads as under :-

"Appointment of staff. - The Board may appoint a Secretary
and such other officers and employees as may be required to
.....
F enable to Board to carry out its functions under this Act :

Provided that the appointment of the Secretary shall be subject
to the approval of the State Government."

Thus, under the proviso to Section 15, it is only the appointment of
G the Secr~tary which is subject to the approval of the State Government. So
far as other staff is concerned, it lies with the Board to make appointment
of all officers and employees as may be required to enable the Board to
carry out its functions under the Act. Thus, we agree with the view taken
by the High Court in this regard that the direction given by the State
H Government to appoint the appellants as Junior Engineers by the Board
R.R. VERMA v. STATE [KASLIWAL, J.] 525

does not involve any matter of policy and it would be an encroachment on A
the powers of the Board given under Section 15 of the Act. It is not in
dispute that the life of the panel was one year which came to an end on
13.9.1985 and that being so no right can be claimed by the appellants after
13.9.1985 on the basis of inclusion of their names in the panel list of 1984
for the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers. So far as giving of any
undertaking is concerned, we are in agreement with the contention of the
B
Learned Counsel for the appellants that such undertaking cannot estop the
appellants from being considered for the future vacancies of Junior Electri-

--
cal Engineers and the appellants cannot be deprived for all times to come.
The post of Junior Electrical Engineer is now governed by the Bihar State
Electricity Junior Electrical Engineer (General) Cadre Rules, 1982 and c
specially Rule 7 read with modification made by Notification dated

- )--
14.10.1988 issued under Section 79 (c) of the Act which reads as follows:-

"Appointments to the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers from
amongst the employees of the Board having Diploma in Electri- D
cal Engineering will be made on the basis of the recommenda-
tions of a Selection Committee which will be constituted by the
Chairman for the purpose. The Selection Committee will ex-
amine the records and interview the candidates who obtain
diploma in Electrical Engineering while in the service of the
Board along with those employees who had obtained diploma E
in Electrical Engineering before joining the service of the
Board."
...
Thus, by a combined reading of Rule 7, posts of Junior Electrical
Engineers (General) Cadre shall be filled by direct recruitment from F
Diploma holders in Electrical Engineering and by absorption of the
Board's employees serving on lower posts. Appointment by direct recruit-
ment and by absorption shall be made against vacancies in a calendar year
in the ratio of 75-25. Now in case of appointment to the posts of Junior
Electrical Engineers if made by absorption from amongst the employees of
the Board serving on lower posts that has to be made throug_h a process G
of screening by a Selection Committee. So far as appointment to be made
by direct recruitment, the candidates have to be selected on the basis of
merit after going through the process of written and oral examination and
the appellants shall have to compete with all the Dipioma holders who
would compete for such posts of Junior Electrical Engineers
-...
to be filled H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R.

A by direct recruitment. The Board in this regard has clearly stated in the
counter affidavit filed before this Court that the appellants who apply for
the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers as and when advertisement is
issued and appear at the competitive examination to be held again by the
Board for appointment to the posts of Junior Engineers and in case they
compete, they would be appointed against the posts of Junior Electrical
B Engineers. The Board, of course, cannot deny the right of the appellants
for appointment on the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers now sought to
be filled on the ground that the appellants had given any undertaking at
the time of their appointment as Operators. The Board has 'to make
appointments for the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers both by way of
c direct recruitment from Diploma holders in Electrical Engineering and by
absorption of the Board's employees serving on lower posts in the ratio of
75- 25 as contemplated in Rule 7 and the appellants would also have a right
to be considered for such appointments. We have been informed during
the course of argument on behalf of the Board that no written or oral
D examination has been conducted to fill the posts of Junior Electrical
Engineers in pursua{lce to the advertisement issued on 29.7.1989.

Thus, taking in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case
and in order to do full justice to all the persons concerned, we direct the
Board to issue a fresh advertisement for filling of the posts of Junior
E Electrical Engineers having fallen due upto 31st March, 1992 and to make
appointments in the ratio of 75 per cent by direct recruitment and 25 per
cent by absorption as contemplated under Rule 7. It is further directed that
age bar would not be considered as disqualification in respect of all those
persons who were included in the panel list of 790 persons prepared in
1984.
F
So far as appeal in SLP No.7642 of 1991 is concerned, it arises out
of the writ petition No.7183 of 1989 filed before the High Court by 65
persons. These 65 persons are also those persons who were included in the
G panel of 790 person prepared in 1984 and who did not qualify in merit for
being appointed on 447 posts of Junior Electrical Engineers. Thus, they
are also' failing in the same category as that of 121 appellants of appeal
arising out of SLP No.3859 of 1991. The appellants in this case have put
forth an additional ground that 116 posts of Junior Electrical Engineers
had fallen vacant even before the expiry of one year and the Board ought
H to have absorbed the appellants against the aforesaid 116 posts of Junior
R.R. VERMA v. STATE-[KASLIWAL, J.] 527

Electrical Engineers. It is no doubt correct that 116 vacancies in the A
general and GTO cadres of Junior Electrical Engineers were existing as
on 31.12.1985, but in our view it lies with the Board to decide as to how
many posts of Junior Electrical Engineers are required to be filled to
enable the Board to carry out its functions under the Act. Merely existence
of vacancits alone is not sufficient until the Board considered it necessary B
·-J. as to how many posts were required to be filled in any year in order to
carry out its functions and duties. There is no allegation that the posts were
not released for appointment with any ma/a fide intention or in order to
give benefit to any person by virtue of postponement of filling such vacan-

- cies. Thus, in our view the appellants of this case also would be governed
by the same direction which has been given in the case of appeal arising C
out of SLP No.3859 of 1991.

~~ Both the appeals are therefore dismissed in the manner indicated
above. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.

T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.