http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: RAKESH RANJAN VERMA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/04/1992

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1348            1992 SCR  (2) 516  1992 SCC  Supl.  (2) 343 JT 1992 (4)   155  1992 SCALE  (2)817

ACT:      Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 : Section 15 and 78-A.      Bihar   State  Electricity  Board   Junior   Electrical Engineer  (General) Cadre Rules, 1982-Rule 7-As  amended  by Notification dated 14.10.1988.      Electricity   Board-Recruitment  of  Junior   Electical 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-Appointment  of  such candidates on the lower post of Operator-Undertaking by them that  they  will  not claim in future  the  post  of  Junior Electrical Engineer-Subsequent claim by such candidates  and direction by State Government under Section 78-A to  appoint and  absorb  them in the post  of  Electrical  Engineer-Held direction  given by State was encroachment on  Boards  power under  Section 15-Undertaking given by candidates would  not estop them from being considered for future  posts-Direction to fill the posts in the ratio of 75% by direct  recruitment and 25% by absorption as contemplated under Rule 7.      Service Law-Recruitment-Panel-Filing of  vacancies-Mere existence of vacancies is not sufficient-Employer can decide how many posts are to be filled.

HEADNOTE:      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  for  one year.   Out  of this panel, 447  candidates  were  appointed according  to  merit but the remaining posts  could  not  be filled due to non-availability of posts.  Since the position of  the appellants was lowerer in 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 undertaking that they would not make any claim  for appointment as Junior Electrical Engineer.                                                        517 By  its  advertisment dated 29.7.89  the  Electricity  Board applications  for the posts of Junior  Electrical  Engineers which  feel vacant later.  The appellants made  their  claim

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

for appointment as Junior Electrical Engineers 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.      The  Electricity Board failed to comply with the  State Government’s direction and the appellants filed petitions in the High Court of Patna for quashing the advertisement dated 29.7.89  and for a direction to appoint and absorb  them  in the vacant substantive posts of Junior Electrical Engineers. The High Court dismissed the petitions holding that (i)  the 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 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  consideration 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 no question  of policy  and was binding on the Electricity Board;  (ii)  the undertaking given by the appellants cannot deprive them from being appointed on future vacancies and the undertaking  was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution; (iii) the posts of  Junior Electrical Engineers were vacant even before  the expiry  of  panel  and the Board should  have  absorbed  the appellants against the aforesaid posts.      On  behalf  on 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 and the appellants had no legal right to be appointed on the basis of their                                                        518 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 policy as may be given to it by  the State Government.  In the circumstances of the  case the  directions  given  by the State  Government  cannot  be considered  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 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  of  Junior Electrical  Engineers.   But the giving of  any  undertaking cannot  estop the appellants from being considered  for  the future  vacancies  of Junior Electrical  Engineers  and  the appellants  cannot  be  deprived  for  all  times  to  come.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Therefore, the Board cannot deny the right of the appellants for appointment on the posts of Junior Electrical  Engineers sought  to be filled on the ground that they had  given  any undertaking  at the time of their appointment as  Operators. [525A-C, 526B]      3.  As  contemplated  in  Rule 7  of  the  Bihar  State Electricity Board Junior Electrical Engineer (General) Cadre Rules,  1982  read with modification  made  by  Notification dated 14.10.1988 issued under Section 79(c) of the Act,  the Board  has  to  make appointments for the  posts  of  Junior Electrical  Engineering  and by adsorption  of  the  Board’s employees serving on lower posts in the ratio of 75 : 25 and the appellants would also have a right to be considered  for such appointments. [525C, 526B-C]      3.1.  Accordingly the Electricity Board is directed  to issue  a  fresh advertisement for filling of  the  posts  of junior  Electrical Engineers having fallen due 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.   Age  bar  should  not  be  considered   as disqualification  in respect of all those persons  who  were included in the panel of 1984. [526E-F]                                                        519      4. It is no doubt correct that vacancies in the general and GTO cadres of Junior Electrical Engineers were  existing when  the panel was operative but it lies with the Board  of 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 function and duties. [527A-B]      A.M.  Mani  v. Kerala State Electricity  Board,  A.I.R. 1968  Kerala 76; The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity  Board and Anr. v. N. Ramachandra Rao and Anr., A.I.R. 1969 AP 328, cited.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1627  & 1628 of 1992.      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.      Dr.  Y.S. Chitale, Anil Jha and Raju Rama Chandran  for the Appellants.      K.K. Venugopal, P.P. Tripathi and Pramod Swarup for the Respondents.      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 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.      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  Engineers   by   direct recruitment and for a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

                                                      520 direction to the Board to comply with the directions of  the State   Government   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  advertisment   No.1/83   dated 26.5.1983 in newspapers inviting applications form  eligible candidates for appointment 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.  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 aforesaid  on the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers.   As no  posts of Junior Electrical Engineers were available  for the remaining 343 candidates which included the petitioners, they  could  not  be  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  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 and 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 appointed against the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers, any undertaking  given by them on the eve 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   78-A  of  the  Electricity  (Supply)   Act,   1948 (hereinafter referred to as ’the                                                        521 Act’).  Another communication of a similar nature was issued by the State 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 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 advertised 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   not  be  appointed.    Thereafter,   on   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

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 condition, they  were  appointed as Operators.   The  panel/merit  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  Engineers  which  fell vacant  later  have  been advertised  by the advertisement dated 29.7.1989  and  fresh applications  have  been  invited  to  fill  the  posts   in 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 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 constituted by the State Government under  Section 5  of  the  Act.   Section  15  of  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  to  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 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 a group of persons be appointed as officers of the Board. The  Board  being an autonomous authority clothed  with  the power to make                                                        522 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. Kerala State Electricity Board, AIR 1968 Kerala P.76 and a Division 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  considered for appointed  as  Operators  on undertaking  being given by them individually that at  later stage  they shall not claim for being 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  Board  or have acquired  Diploma  while  in  the service  of the Board for being appointed against the  posts 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 order :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

         "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   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 posts of Junior Electrical Engineers :  of course, it will be open to the Board to  consider  the cases of the petitioners along with others for  appointments to the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers in                                                        523           accordance with the new Rule 7 referred to above.          This  writ application is, accordingly,  dismissed.          In  the circumstances of the cases, 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 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 exercise of its  power 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 have an undertaking while being appointed as 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 unconscionable 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  the  posts  are  filled   by   direct recruitment.   It was contended that all the appellants  are Diploma holders and have additional advantage of  experience on  the  post of Operators and in  these  circumstances  the appellants   should be absorbed against the vacant posts  of Junior  Electrical  Engineers  without  competing  with  the direct recruits.      On  the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing  for  the Board supported 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 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  legal right  for  being appointed as Junior  Electrical  Engineers after  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                                                        524 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  of policy and no direction under such power  can be given to the Board to make appointment of the  appellants

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

dehors the Rules.           Section 78-A of the Act reads as under :-           "Directions by the State Government. - (1) In  the          discharge  of  its functions, the  Board  shall  be          guided by such directions on questions of policy as          may be given to it by the State Government.           (2)  If any dispute arises between 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."      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 question  of policy.  So far as  the  appointment  of staff  is  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 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  the  Secretary  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 Government to  appoint the appellants as Junior Engineers by the Board                                                        525 does  not  involve any matter of policy and it would  be  an encroachment on 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 Learned  Counsel  for the appellants that  such  undertaking cannot  estop the appellants from being considered  for  the future  vacancies  of Junior Electrical  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  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 Electrical Engineering  will  be          made  on  the  basis of the  recommendations  of  a          Selection  Committee which will be  constituted  by          the  Chairman  for  the  purpose.   The   Selection Committee  will  examine  the  records  and  interview   the candidates  who  obtain diploma  in  Electrical  Engineering while in the service of the Board along with those employees

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

who  had obtained diploma 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  Diploma  holders  in   Electrical Engineering  and  by  absorption of  the  board’s  employees serving  on lower posts.  Appointment by direct  recruitment 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 through a process 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  Diploma holders   who  would  compete  for  such  posts  of   Junior Electrical Engineers to be filled                                                        526 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 on the posts of Junior Engineers and in case they  Compete, they would be appointed against the posts  of Junior  Electrical 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 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 examination  has  been conducted  to fill the posts of Junior Electrical  Engineers in pursuance 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  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 percent 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.      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 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 falling 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  to  have absorbed the  appellant  against  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

aforesaid 116 posts of Junior                                                        527 Electrical  Engineers.  It  is no  doubt  correct  that  116 vacancies in the 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  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.  There is no allegation that the posts were  not  released  for  appointment  with  any  mala  fide intention  or  in  order to give benefit to  any  person  by virtue of postponement of filling such vacancies.  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 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.                                     Appeal dismissed.                                                        528