ORDER Dixit, C.J. 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur, (hereinafter called the Board), seeks a writ of Certiorari for quashing an order of the Industrial Court made in the following circumstances. 2. Section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, empowers the Board to make regulations providing for the duties of officers and servants of the Board, and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service. In exercise of this power, the Board has framed regulations entitled the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (General Service) Regulations, 1952. Regulation 5 lays down that subject to such standing orders as may be framed by the Board, all appointments against sanctioned posts, whether by promotion or by direct recruitment, shall be made strictly on merit. By Regulation-7 it is provided that all appointments shall be made by the Board either by direct recruitment or by promotion. Clause (c) of Regulation-7 further says that in making appointments in regard to Class-III employees, selection shall be made by a Committee which will consist of the Member-in-charge as the Chairman the Secretary and an officer of the Board nominated by the Member-in-charge. It appeals that in 1955 the Electricity Board of the old C.P. and Berar issued a circular on 10th February 1955 laying down that clerks will be required to appear and qualify themselves at a departmental examination for being considered eligible to superior ministerial posts. On 13th March 1961 the petitioner - Board issued a similar circular with regard to the holding of departmental examinations, stating that Upper Division Clerks and Select Grade Clerks may appear and qualify themselves at the examination for being considered for the posts of Select Grade Clerks and Superintendents. The respondent No. 1, the M.P. Vidyut Karmchari Sangh, a union of the employees of the Board, opposed the introduction of departmental examination. But de3pite their opposition eight departmental examinations were held; some clerks who had been promoted on officiating basis to higher posts were reverted because of their failure to qualify themselves at the examination, and other clerks who had passed the examination were promoted. On 12th October 1965 the respondent Union approached the Board for abolition of the examination and then on 11th November 1965 filed an application before the Labour Court, Jabalpur, under section 31 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. 3. On 12th October 1965 the respondent Union approached the Board for abolition of the examination and then on 11th November 1965 filed an application before the Labour Court, Jabalpur, under section 31 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. 3. The Labour Court held that the "system of departmental examinations was illegal, without any propriety and against the principles of natural justice; that the introduction of the system of departmental examinations in regard to those employees who bad entered service or who had been promoted before 13th March 1961 amounted to a "change" in the terms and conditions of their employment; and that reversion of persons who entered service before 13th March 1961 for not passing the departmental examination was illegal. The Board then preferred a revision petition before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court found that the holding of departmental examinations for determining the eligibility of clerks to superior posts was neither illegal nor unfair; but that the Board had not made any regulation for the holding of departmental examinations and prescribing that Upper Division Clerks and Select Grade Clerks would be required to pass the examination before they could be considered fur the posts of Select Grade Clerks and Superintendents; that the circular issued by the Board on 13th March 1961 was merely an executive order and did not have the effect of validly amending the regulations framed by the Board under section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948; and that the earlier circular issued by the Board in 1955 was also no better than an executive order and did not amend the Regulations. On this view, the Industrial Court held that the holding of departmental examinations by the Board was illegal and that so long as the Regulations were not validly amended providing for the holding of departmental examinations and for promotion on the basis of the results of the examinations, the Board could nor call upon its employees to pass any departmental examination for proving their eligibility to superior posts. Accordingly, the Industrial Court set aside the decision of the Labour Court directing- "(i) That clerks who were appointed before 1961 shall not be required to pass the departmental test as introduced by Circular (Ex. Accordingly, the Industrial Court set aside the decision of the Labour Court directing- "(i) That clerks who were appointed before 1961 shall not be required to pass the departmental test as introduced by Circular (Ex. D./12) dated 11-3-1961 for being considered fit for promotion to tile posts of Select Grade Clerks and Superintendents as the case may be; (ii) that the clerks who were promoted as Select Grade Clerks or Superintendents before 11-3-61 and have been reverted for the sole reason that they failed to pass the test introduced by Circular (Ex. D./12), shall be restored to their posts before such reversion and shall be entitled to all emoluments which they would have drawn but for such reversion. Arrangements shall be made by the Board to judge their suitability to continue on these posts as provided in regulation 7 framed under section 79 (c) of the Electricity Act". The Industrial Court also observed that the aforestated directions shall not affect the powers of the Board to frame Regulations under section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is for quashing this order of the Industrial Court that the present petition has been filed by the M.P. Electricity Board. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have reached the conclusion that this application must be dismissed. In principle, no objection can be taken in regard to the eligibility requirement of passing an examination for promotion. When, as laid down by Regulation 5, all appointments, whether by promotion or by direct recruitment are to be made strictly on merit, then some method for determining the relative excellence of those presumably qualified for promotion has to be evolved. The Board has no doubt the power under section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, to prescribe eligibility requirements for promotion. But the Regulations do not lay down those requirements. The Regulations give to the personal agency specified in Regulation-7 a broad discretion in determining eligibility requirements for promotion. Thus when clause (c) of Regulation-7 says that in regard to Class III employees selection shall be made by a Committee c0nsisting of the Member-in-charge as the Chairman, the Secretary and an officer of the Board nominated by the Member-in-charge this Committee can adopt any tests, including written or oral or both, for determining the" relative merit of those qualified for promotion. If this Committee had laid down that selection for promotion would be on the basis of results of an examination prescribed by it, then such an examination would be a valid one useless it is established that there is no plausible relationship of the subject-matter of the examination to the duties and functions of the position held by the employees at the time of the examination or to be held on promotion as a result of the examination, or if it is shown that the examination would the wart fair competition and deny "equal opportunity" violating Article 16 of the Constitution. 5. Now, here, the Selection Committee mentioned in Regulation 7 (c) did not itself prescribe any examination tests for determining eligibility for promotion. The petitioner-Board no doubt issued circulars, first in 1955 and then on 13th March 1961, in regard to the holding of departmental examinations and laying down that Upper Division Clerks and Select Grade Clerks could appear at those examinations and qualify themselves for being considered for the posts of Select Grade Clerks and Superintendents. But the circular of the 1961 or the earlier circular of 1955 which merely embodies the decision of the Board to hold departmental examinations for determining the eligibility for promotion is on the face of it no better than an executive order. Those circulars nowhere say as to how and in what manner the Committee, spoken of in Regulation 7 (c), should consider the result of the examination in making the selection entrusted to it. They do not at all touch the power of the Selection Committee to make selection by adopting tests in their discretion, and have not the effect of amending Regulation-7. So long as the present Regulation-7 (c) stands and no Regulation is framed by the Board in the exercise of its powers under section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, amending the Regulations framed in 1952, and incorporating in the Regulations the passing of examination as an eligibility requirement for promotion, the Board is not competent to call upon its employees to appear and pass, the departmental examination, to make promotions on the basis of results of the examination or to revert those who had not passed that examination. 6. 6. Shri Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that on 31st March 1961 the Board passed the following resolution:- "Ratified the decision to prescribe departmental examination for Upper Division Clerks and Select Grade Clerks for promotion to the posts of Select Grade Clerks and Superintendents as detailed in the note circulated with the agenda in modification of the provisions of Board's General Service Regulations. Necessary orders have already been issued vide Circular No. G. III/TRG/861 dt. 13-3-1961." It was said that this resolution, read with the circular issued on 13th March 1961 with regard to the holding of the departmental examinations, had the effect of validly introducing departmental examinations. There is no merit in this contention. The resolution passed by the Board on 31st March 1961 merely ratified the decision embodied in the circular dated the 13th March 1961 with regard to the holding of departmental examinations for Upper Division Clerks and Select Grade Clerks for promotion. It was in no sense a resolution passed by the Board amending regulation -7 (c) so as to prescribe the passing of the departmental examination as an eligibility requirement for promotion- The resolution dated the 31st March 1961 can at the most be read as a resolution deciding to prescribe departmental examinations. But a mere decision to hold departmental examinations was not sufficient. It had to be followed by an amending regulation made under section 79 (c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, incorporating in the Regulations the passing of departmental examination as an eligibility requirement for promotion. 7. It was also submitted that the application made by respondent No. 1 was barred by time. In our judgment, the Industrial Court was right in holding that the application was made within three months from the date of the last approach as required by section 62 (1) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. 8. In our opinion, the Industrial Court was right in reaching the conclusion that it did. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of the respondent No. I. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs.200. The outstanding amount of security deposit after deduction of costs shall be refunded to the petitioner.