JUDGMENT S.C. Verma, J.
1. The main questions which arise for consideration in these petitions are that the additional posts of Assistant Engineers and Deputy Director (Construction) created by Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (hereinafter referred to as 'Parishad') after creating new Divisions and making appointments by promotion are valid and in accordance with law as also within the competence/jurisdiction of the Parishad.
2. The U. P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad is an authority created under the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam'), exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 26X (2) (b) of the Adhiniyam, 1964, the Board had framed the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Board (Officers and Staff Establishment) Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. 1984) laying down the conditions of service of the Officers and Staff of the Parishad. In the Engineering establishment of the Parishad, there is a cadre of technical staff-Engineers, which consists of Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer. Deputy Director (Construction), Joint Director and Chief Engineer. Under the Regulations, the initial recruitment on the post of Junior Engineer is through direct recruitment, on the post of Assistant Engineer it is by promotion and through direct recruitment in the proportion of 50% each. The source of recruitment on the post higher than the Assistant Engineer except the post of Chief Engineer is by way of promotion.
3. Under Regulation 10 (2) (b) of the Regulations, source of recruitment on Class 'B' post is 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Further, Regulation 10 (4) envisages that promotion shall be confined to the post within the same group and shall be subject to the conditions of eligibility for promotion to different posts as mentioned therein. The Junior Engineer is liable for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer after completion of atleast 10 years of service as Junior Engineer and an Assistant Engineer is liable for promotion to the post of Deputy Director after atleast six years of service as Assistant Engineer.
4. The Parishad had advertised for recruitment on the posts of Junior Engineer through advertisement published in 'Swatantra Bharat' dated 23.5.1982. After the selections were made by the Selection Committee, the appointments were made on the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) by the appointing authority, the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow. The selected incumbents were given temporary/ad hoc appointment by the appointment order dated 23.11.1982. The temporary/ad hoc services of the incumbents were regularised by order of the Director dated 3.3.1991 with effect from 22.1.1984. A Seniority list of the Junior Engineers was published on 16.6.1992 wherein under the Column No. 5. It was indicated that the persons whose names figure from Sl. Nos. 34 to 53 were regularised under Order No. 391 with effect from 23.1.1984.
5. Although Sri Anil Kumar, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1288 (S/B) of 1997 did not complete ten years of service on the post of Junior Engineer, he was given officiating charge of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by order dated 2.2.1991. Sri. K. P. Parmar, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1263 (S/B) of 1997 was also given promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) with effect from 18.6.1991. Sri Anand Kumar Agarwal, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1405 (S/B) of 1997 was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) by order dated 18.6.1991 and Sri Bal Veer Singh, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1350 (S/B) of 1997 was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by order dated 23.3.1995.
6. The Board in its 72nd meeting held on 19.9.1995 increased the sanctioned posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) from 72 to 100. Similarly the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) were increased from 11 to 30 and the posts of Deputy Director (Electrical/ Mechanical) were increased from 1 to 4, The Board in its meeting held on 19.9.1995 for effective working of the Parishad to strengthen the cadre of technical staff under Regulations, 1984 increased number of Divisions as also the number of posts by the said resolution. The appointments were then made by promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer and Deputy Director, by the appointment orders issued in October, 1995.
7. The petitioners have alleged that in 1995 they have become eligible for appointment by virtue of their tenure of service on the post of Assistant Engineer as also for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Construction). By the impugned orders issued by the Opposite Party No. 3 dated 21.10.1997, new Divisions which were created and new posts of Deputy Director and Assistant Engineer, which were sanctioned were withdrawn and the appointment of the petitioners were also withdrawn and they were reverted to their substantive posts of Junior Engineers.
8. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the impugned orders of reversion from the posts of Assistant Engineer and Deputy Director (Construction) to the substantive posts of Junior Engineer. In case the creation of the new Divisions and the increase in the number of sanctioned posts is ultimately held to be in accordance with law, there would be no dispute and there would be vacancies available both on the posts of Assistant Engineer and the Deputy Director (Construction) for the continuance of the petitioners and the action of the respondents in revoking the orders of promotion and reverting the incumbents to the posts of Junior Engineer would not be justified and in accordance with law.
9. We have thus mainly to examine as to whether the increase in the number of sanctioned posts by the Parishad was in accordance with law or the powers exercised by the State Government in disapproving the creation of new Divisions and revoking the sanction of new posts by the Parishad was within their competence/jurisdiction. We may further Indicate that there is no dispute raised before us with regard to the determination of seniority and the method of appointment by promotion.
10. Under the Regulation 4 (1) of the Regulations 1984, it has been provided that the strength of the Officers and Staff and of each category of posts therein shall be such as may be determined by the Board from time to time. The strength of the Officers and Staff and of each category of posts therein and the scales of pay shall, until orders varying the same are passed, be as given in the Appendix-A to these Regulations is provided under Regulation 4 (2). In the proviso it has been provided that the Board may create such additional permanent or temporary posts from time to time as may be found necessary and may change the nomenclature of the existing posts.
11. The initial number of posts and the scales of pay have been varying from time to time and necessary orders were passed in this regard. As stated above, the number of posts which existed at the time when 72nd meeting of the Board was held on 19.9.1995, its existing strength was to this effect : the Deputy Director (Construction) (Civil) 20, Assistant Engineer (Civil)-72, Assistant Engineer (Electrical/ Mechanical)-11.
12. A proposal was made for increasing the strength of the staff for the reason that there were 262 Mandis functioning and market fee has been enhanced from 1-1/2% to 5% and considering the number of districts in the State, it was decided to increase 25% posts. The Board accepted the proposal in view of the Government Order dated 14th September. 1995 and increased the strength of Deputy Director (Construction) (Civil) to 29. Deputy Director (Construction) (Electrical/ Mechanical)-4. Assistant Engineer (Civil)-100 and Assistant Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical)-30. Other posts were also increased proportionately but as we are concerned with the posts of Assistant Engineer and Deputy Director, the figures have been indicated with regard to them.
13. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it has been staled that with regard to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) there are 72 sanctioned posts out of which 32 posts arc to be filled by promotion from amongst the cadre of Junior Engineers. It has been stated that promotions have also been made strictly in order of seniority of 28 incumbents on regular basis and the case of four incumbents for promotion have been kept in sealed cover and to be considered after they are cleared in the departmental proceedings. There was no post of Assistant Engineer for promotion and thus the promotions have not been made in accordance with law. Similarly there was only one post of Deputy Director (Construction) which was already filled up by regular selection and no vacancy was available.
14. The Board had created 16 Divisions artificially without approval of the State Government. The respondents have further taken the stand that the implementation of the resolution of Mandi Parishad passed in its 72nd meeting dated 19.9.1995 was stayed by the State Government vide Order No. 3844/12-5-95-600 (D/91, dated November 3, 1995 and the resolutions of the Board were not allowed to be implemented and said posts never came into existence and the appointments were not treated to be in accordance with law and as such they were revoked. The respondents have also taken the stand that the Mandi Parishad has not created any Hill cadre and the Hill Cadre Rules do not apply. The State Government had not made applicable the Hill Cadre Rules in respect of the employees of the Mandi Parishad nor their options were taken in this regard. The respondents have further justified their action on the ground that in pursuance to the directions issued by the State Government under U. P. State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975, the resolution of the Board in its 72nd meeting dated 19.9.1995 was firstly stayed and thereafter it was revoked and the new Divisions created by the Board were also closed and the orders under which they were created were set aside by order dated 21.10.1997.
15. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Parishad is the competent authority under Regulations, 1984 to determine the strength of the Officers and to sanction posts and to make appointments in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Regulations. The State Government cannot interfere with the working of the Mandi Parishad and they cannot issue directions revoking the sanction of posts and creation of Divisions. The petitioners who are eligible for promotion were duly promoted and they cannot be reverted to the posts of Junior Engineers having put more than six years of service without affording any opportunity or to show-cause. The State Government had no power and jurisdiction under the U. P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Adhiniyam to revoke or rescind the resolution of the Board creating new Divisions as also increasing the strength and sanction of posts in the cadre of technical staff which is not a policy matter covered within the ambit of U. P. State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975.
16. Before we advert to the rival contentions of the parties, the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964' and The 'Uttar Pradesh State Control Over Public Corporation, Act, 1975' are necessary to be quoted.
U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964-
"26.F. Appointment of Officers and Servants.--(1) The Board may appoint such Officers and servants as it considers necessary for efficient performance of its functions on such terms and conditions as may be provided for in regulations made by the Board.
(2) The Board may, with the previous approval of the State Government, appoint a servant of the Central Government or the State Government as an Officer or servant of the Board or of a Committee on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
26H. Authentication of orders and other instruments of the Board.--All proceedings of the Board shall be authenticated by the signature of Chairman or the Member-Secretary and all orders-and other instruments issued by the Board shall be authenticated by the signature of the Member-Secretary or such other Officer of the Board as may be authorised in this behalf by regulations.
26M. Directions on questions of policy--(1) In the discharge of its functions, the Board shall be guided by such directions on question of policy as may be given to it by the State Government.
(2) If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the State Government may issue a direction under sub-section (1), the decision of the State Government shall be final."
The Uttar Pradesh State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975-
'2. Power to issue directions to Statutory Bodies.--(1) Every statutory body (by whatever name called), established or constituted under any Uttar Pradesh Act, excepting Universities governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 as re-enacted and amended by the Uttar Pradesh Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974, shall, in the discharge of its functions, be guided by such directions on questions of policies, as may be given to it by the State Government, notwithstanding that no such power has expressly been conferred on the State Government under the law establishing or constituting such statutory body.
(2) If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the State Government may issue a direction under sub-section (1), the decision of the State Government shall be final."
17. After the resolution was framed to improve the working of the Cadre of Technical Services, a proposal for strengthening the cadre of Technical services under Regulation. 1984 was approved under Resolution No. 10 of the 72nd Meeting held on 19.9.1995 and new Divisions were created and posts were sanctioned. The appointment letters were issued by order dated 9.10.1995 and 28.11.1995.
18. The State Government on receipt of the resolution passed by the Board in its 72nd meeting took recourse to the provisions of Section 26M of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and issued directions through letter dated 3.11.1995 that the resolution No. 10 of the meeting held on 19.9.1995 relating to strengthening of the cadre of Technical Services shall not be Implemented and a formal proposal be sent for approval. It was also indicated in the said letter that the appointments made by the Board are not in accordance with law as the Board had no power and jurisdiction to relax the qualifications under the Regulations of 1984. These proposals have not been accorded prior approval and the power to relax the qualifications vests with the State Government. The Board, thereafter, in its meeting held discussions relating to the creation of the Divisions and sanction of the posts and the appointments in the presence of the Director, Additional Directors S/Sri Hari Shanker Pandey, Mohd. Shahabuddin, Harsh Vardhan, Chief Engineer, Ushakant Gupta, Financial Controller, Joint Directors S/Sri A. P. Upadhyay, Shyam Lal and Sri J. N. Tandon, Legal Advisor.
19. After considering the entire situation including the finances of the Board and the working, the extra Divisions created and the extra posts sanctioned by the Board in the 72nd meeting held on 19.9.1995, the same were withdrawn. The proposal was accepted by the Director, Mandi Parishad as also by the Chairman of the Parishad/Minister for Agriculture Sri Naseem Uddin. The proceedings have been placed on record through Annexure-CA-1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. After the resolution was adopted by the Director, Mandi Parishad on 17.10.1997. necessary directions were issued by the Director and they were approved by the Chairman on 18.10.1997, thereafter the impugned orders dated 21.10.1997 were issued. It appears that the Board considering the directions of the State Government as contained in the letter dated 3.11.1995, had taken the decision dated 17.10.1997, which was approved by the Chairman on 18.10.1997.
20. On careful examination of the provisions of Section 26B of the Adhiniyam, it has been provided that the Board shall be guided by such directions on question of policy as may be given by the State Government in discharge of its functions. The appointment of the Officers and servants is a function of the Board and they are regulated and controlled by the Regulations framed in this regard being Regulations of 1984. To strengthen the cadre of the Technical Staff, the new Divisions were created and extra posts were sanctioned for efficient working of the Mandi Parishad. The sanction of posts in the newly created Divisions is a matter of policy and the State Government may guide the Board by issuing such directions as may be necessary. The question as to whether any matter is or is not a "matter in respect of which the State Government may issue a direction ts to be decided by the State Government and the decision shall be final.
21. The State Government has taken the decision that the increase in number of Divisions and sanction of posts in the cadre of Technical services is a matter of policy for which the State Government can issue directions and for that reason has issued the directions contained in the letter dated 3.11.1995 staying the implementation of the Resolution No. 10 of the 72nd meeting of the Board held on 19.9.1995.
22. To the same effect are the powers of the State Government under the Uttar Pradesh State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975, under Section 2 (1), it has been provided that every statutory body (by whatever name called), which would include the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, shall in discharge of its function be guided by such directions on question of policies as may be given to it by the State Government, notwithstanding that no such power has expressly been conferred on the State Government under the law establishing or constituting such statutory body. It has further been provided under subsection (2) of Section 2 that if any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the State Government may issue a direction under sub-section (1), the decision of the State Government shall be final.
23. Thus, the powers enjoyed by the State Government under Section 26M of the Adhiniyam and those possessed under the provisions of U. P. State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975 are almost Identical and sufficiently arm and strengthen the action of the State Government to stay or to annul the resolutions of the Mandi Parishad relating to the policy matter. Clothed with the aforesaid powers, the State Government has exercised the power under the aforesaid provisions and has taken the decision that the Resolution No. 10 of the Board of 72nd meeting, held on 19.9.1995 relating to strengthening of the cadre of technical staff and the implementation of the same be stayed and formal proposal be sent for the approval. The Board, thereafter, reconsidered the matter and Instead of sending the proposal for approval of the State Government decided to close down the newly created Divisions and the additional posts of Assistant Engineers and the Deputy Director, created in those Divisions. It was in these circumstances, the order of appointments given to the petitioner's were revoked and they were placed according to their seniority on their substantively appointed post.
24. The contention of the petitioners that the Board did not implement the decision of the State Government as indicated in the order dated 3.11.1995, annexed as Annexure-CA-2 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is not correct. The detailed proceedings and discussion regarding the requirements and sanction of the posts and necessary orders were passed by the Director, Mandi Parishad and the newly created Divisions were closed and the extra posts created were withdrawn.
25. Apart from the above reason, the appointment orders Issued in favour of the petitioners dated 9.10.1995 and 28.10.1995 indicate that the appointment of the petitioners were purely on ad hoc and temporary basis on the post of Assistant Engineer which required that they would continue to look after the work of the Assistant Engineer as they were earlier doing. The petitioners who were Junior Engineers and were looking after the work of Assistant Engineers, v/ere required to continue to look after the work of the post of Assistant Engineer on purely ad hoc and temporary basis and they were given the pay scale of the post of Assistant Engineer of Rs. 2,200-4,000. The revocation of the said order by the impugned order does not amount to reversion or deprive them of any substantive legal right possessed by "them. Firstly, the petitioners cannot claim any legal right on the basis of the terms and conditions of the appointment which only provided that the petitioners would look after the work of the Assistant Engineer on purely temporary and ad hoc basis, and secondly, the petitioners cannot claim for their retention after the posts itself were abolished. Similarly the incumbents holding the posts of Deputy Director have also been placed on their substantive posts as the posts itself have been abolished and the nature and orders of appointment did not vest any legal right for being retained on the posts of Deputy Director or Assistant Engineers.
26. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the writ petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.
27. The Writ Petition Nos. 1288 (S/B) of 1997, 1263 (S/B) of 1997, 1350 (S/B) of 1997 and 1405 (S/B) of 1997 are dismissed. Interim order, if any, is discharged forthwith.