Pattanaik, J. - (1.) These appeals by the Nagpur Improvement Trust are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench, Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 781 of 1988 and Writ Petition No. 1945 of 1989. By the said judgment under challenge, the High Court has quashed the promotion of the private respondents to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), inter alia, on the ground that there has been no rules framed by the State Government to promote people in the technical line and in the absence of such rule, it is not possible for the Trust/Board to appoint people either on the basis of any decision of the Board or under any executive instructions evolved by the Board.
(2.) The private respondents moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that the posts of Engineering Supervisor and Assistant Engineer under the Board are required to be filled up by promotion from among the Junior Engineers. It was also alleged that the Trust had issued an advertisement in the year 1981 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Engineer laying down Degree in Civil Engineering with three years' experience as the eligibility criteria. This eligibility clause was later on dispensed with by subsequent advertisement dated 1st of August, 1982 and people could be appointed with sufficient experience. It was alleged that there being no statutory rules providing the criteria for promotion, appointments are being made on the whims of the Trust and such appointments, therefore, need not be sustained. A further grievance had been made that the draughtsmen who were not eligible to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, the Trust by its resolution dated 30th of December, 1986 equated the post of Draughtsman with the Engineering Supervisor and made them eligible for promotion and such resolution was motivated one, designed to confer benefit to some particular persons and as such should be quashed by the High Court. The Trust/Board entered appearance in the High Court and took the stand that when the State Government has not framed any rules in exercise of power under Section 21 of the Act, then the Trust/Board on whom the control and management entirely vests can certainly make appointments and promotions to different posts and as such appointments bona- fidely made cannot be interfered with by the High Court. The High Court, however, on consideration of the submissions made by the rival parties came to the conclusion that under Section 21 of the Act, it is the mandatory duty of the State Government to frame rules prescribing conditions under which appointments can be made to the post under the Trust requiring professional skill and in the absence of such rules, the Trust is not empowered to make any appointment to such posts. Since admittedly, no rules have been framed, the appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer made by the Trust are invalid and accordingly such appointments were quashed.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Trust/Board contends that the view taken by the High Court in interpreting the provisions of the Trust Act is wholly unsustainable and such interpretation will create an administrative chaos in managing the affairs of the Trust. He, however, contended that in the service jurisprudence, it is an accepted rule that in the absence of any statutory rules, the administrative instructions operate in the field and, therefore, so long as there has been no rule framed by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 21 of the Act, the Trust/Board would be fully empowered to make appointments to different posts by the decision of the Board and such decisions cannot be found fault with. The learned counsel further contended that there has been no finding by the High Court that the resolution of the Board providing criteria for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer and the ultimate decision of the Board appointing Assistant Engineer are either for an extraneous consideration or have been malafidely taken and in that view of the matter, such decision should operate and the appointments made pursuant to such decision should not have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;