JUDGMENT : Brishketu Saran Sinha, J. 1. Shri Ramanand Prasad Singh, the petitioner, is employed as a Fuel Technologist at Patratu Thermal Power Station of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Board). His prayer in this writ application under Article 226, of the Constitution is to quash annexures 11 and 12 appended to it. Annexure 11 is an office ORDER :no. 63 dated 7th February, 1981, the relevant portion of which states that Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sinha, Electrical Superintending Engineer, will assume charge of a Circle which will henceforth be called Mechanical Maintenance Circle III at Patratu Thermal Power station and he shall be incharge of Coal Handling right from mines to bunkers etc, and under his control, apart from other Divisions, will be the Fuel and Economy Division. Annexure 12 is an office ORDER :of the Patratu Thermal Power Station bearing no. 71 dated 10th February, 1981, which provides that because of the creation of the Mechanical Maintenance Circle No. III, the office ORDER :s, copies of which are annexures 10 and 10/a in respect of Fuel and Economy Division are cancelled and the Fuel Technologist will now report directly to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer and shall perform functions enumerated therein. At the outset it would be convenient to state some of the facts which are not in dispute in a chronological ORDER :. It appears that on 26th October, 1968, a proposal was made for the creation of a post of Fuel Technologist for the Patratu Thermal Power Station. The proposal stated that storage and stocking of-coal and fuel oil is a specialised type of work which has to be properly handled by persons having adequate technical background in the field of Fuel Technology and such Technologists are provided in every morden power station to examine and provide guidelines on the ways and means for reducing consumption of fuel and to effect improvement in its utilization which, in the ultimate stage, influences over-all thermal efficiency of a plant and reduces cost of generation. This job was being managed by one Assistant Engineer. It was, therefore, proposed that the post of a Fuel Technologist be sanctioned for the Patratu Thermal Power Station in the scale of pay of Rs. 325-30-925 and in lieu thereof, one of the posts of Assistant Engineer would be surrendered. This job was being managed by one Assistant Engineer. It was, therefore, proposed that the post of a Fuel Technologist be sanctioned for the Patratu Thermal Power Station in the scale of pay of Rs. 325-30-925 and in lieu thereof, one of the posts of Assistant Engineer would be surrendered. It was also pointed out that a similar post had been created for the Barauni Thermal Power Station. A draft for the approval of the Board was also placed. It seems that the Board approved the proposal and the petitioner applied for the post on the basis of an advertisement which appeared in the Indian Nation. The petitioner, in his application dated 27th January, 1969, copy of which is annexure F/2, stated his qualifications. Annexure 14 is a copy of a letter dated 22nd July, 1976, from the Chief Administrator-cum-Engineer-in-Chief of the Electricity Board to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Patratu Thermal Power Station, regarding upgradation of the post of Fuel Technologists at both Patratu and Barauni Thermal Power Stations. It may be stated that the Bihar State Electricity Board has a Board created under Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The letter stated that the Board by a resolution dated 14th April, 1976, has upgraded the post of Fuel Technologists posted at Barauni and Patratu in the scale of Rs. 1050-1650/- and the work of Fuel and Efficiency Division should be divided at the power station into two divisions, namely, (i) Efficiency Division and (ii) Fuel and Economy Division and that the Fuel Technologist at both the power stations in the grade equivalent to that of an Executive Engineer will be incharge of the Fuel and Economy Division. It further provided that apart from looking after the Fuel and Economy Division the Fuel Technologist will also do the work enumerated in paragraph 3 of that letter. In paragraph 4 it was further laid down that the Fuel Technologist in the grade equivalent to an Executive Engineer will exercise the powers of an Executive Engineer, delegated by the Board. Annexure 6 is a memorandum dated 28th December, 1979, issued by the Department of General Administration of the Electricity Board which states that the duties of Fuel Technologist were defined in the letter copy of which is annexure 14 but had been subsequently divested of their duties. Annexure 6 is a memorandum dated 28th December, 1979, issued by the Department of General Administration of the Electricity Board which states that the duties of Fuel Technologist were defined in the letter copy of which is annexure 14 but had been subsequently divested of their duties. But as the Fuel Technologists were appointed for specific work and as they possess expertise for that work, it was decided that the functions and duties as defined in the letter copy, of which is annexure 14 shall be performed by Fuel Technologists at Barauni and Patratu Thermal power stations. It was reiterated that they would be incharge of the Fuel and Economy Division of the power station and they would also have to do the work which was stated in paragraph 3 of annexure 14. This communication, it may further be pointed out, reiterated all that was stated in annexure 14 and was issued under the ORDER :s of the Board. 2. Thereafter, on 19th January, 1980, a proposal was put up to the Board (annexure 2) emphasising the importance of bringing about economy in fuel consumption at Thermal power station. It said that even a marginal economy in fuel consumption at a Thermal power station means substantial saving of expenditure to which no proper attention has so far been given. It was pointed out that Fuel Technologist at both the power stations are highly qualified and experienced and had acquired better efficiency by undergoing studies in the University of Leeds and handling power station located in the United Kingdom. But there was no scope for any promotion in their cadre because no higher post had been created and this would lead to frustration. As the job was complicated and their services indispensable, it would be essential to upgrade the post of Fuel Technologist in the scale of Rs. 1600-2000/- which is equivalent to the rank of Superintending Engineer. This proposal, after detailed examination was accepted by the Board on the same day and the copy of that proceeding is annexure 2/a. On that very day the petitioner was transferred from Barauni to Patratu Thermal Power station and the Fuel Technologist at Patratu was transferred to Barauni Thermal Power station. Copy of this communication is annexure 3. This very annexure 3 further provides that the post of Fuel Technologist was declared non-transferable after implementation of this transfer ORDER :. Copy of this communication is annexure 3. This very annexure 3 further provides that the post of Fuel Technologist was declared non-transferable after implementation of this transfer ORDER :. Annexure 4 is another communication of the Board dated 21st January, 1980, which provides, apart from other things, that consequent upon the upgradation of the post of Fuel Technologists, they would have the same power as those of officers of the rank of Superintending Engineer and that the Fuel Technologists will be directly responsible to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer concerned of the power station. Annexure 7 is a charge report of the petitioner dated 21st January, 1980, saying that he had taken over charge as Fuel Technologist at Patratu in the forenoon of 21st January, 1980 and the charge report in the prescribed form was enclosed for information to the General manager-cum Chief Engineer. 3. On the 5th of February, 1981, the Joint Secretary of the Electricity Board wrote to the Chief Engineer (Design) and the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer (Transmission) that the Chairman had decided that all decisions taken by the Board at its meeting on 19th January, 1980, be placed at the meeting of the Board to be held on 7th February, 1980 for review. It was, therefore, requested to send all the connected files. Before that, on 1st February, 1980, it appears that at the Patratu Thermal power station in presence of the Chairman, members of the Board and senior officers of Patratu Thermal Power station it was decided that there will be separate Circle headed by a qualified Superintending Engineer for handling coal right from mines to the raw coal bunkers of the boilers and in pursuance of such a decision and under ORDER :of the Chairman, until a permanent arrangement is made for the posting of a qualified Superintending Engineer for fuel handling. Shri P.P. Thachil, Superintending Engineer (M.M.) shall continue to hold charge of the duties and responsibilities of fuel handling in addition to his own duties. It was further decided that Shri A. Pathak, Executive Engineer, Fuel and Economy Division, will continue to be on the same post until further ORDER :. Aggrieved by these two ORDER :s the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 321 of 1980 in this Court. However, during the pendency of that application, ORDER :s were passed copies of which are annexures 8 and 8/a both dated 9th February, 1980. Aggrieved by these two ORDER :s the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 321 of 1980 in this Court. However, during the pendency of that application, ORDER :s were passed copies of which are annexures 8 and 8/a both dated 9th February, 1980. Annexure 8 stated that the Board had withdrawn its ORDER :regarding allocation of work to Fuel Technologists at Patratu and Barauni Thermal Power stations and annexure 8/a provided that in pursuance of the Board's resolution the scale of pay of the posts of Fuel Technologists for Barauni and Patratu Thermal Power stations is revised to the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-1800/. In the aforesaid writ application the petitioner made a prayer to be permitted to amend his petition by incorporating therein prayer to quash annexures 8 and 8/a. It may be mentioned that these two communications bore the same annexure number in C.W.J.C. No. 321 of 1080. This writ application was disposed of on the 9th of April, 1980 by a Bench of which I was a party. By the aforesaid JUDGMENT : both annexures 8 and 8/a were quashed with liberty to the Board to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. It was, however, made clear that till the Board reconsidered the matter the petitioner would continue to discharge the same or similar duties as they were discharging on the basis of annexure 2, the decision of the Board dated 19th January, 1980. After, the aforesaid decision, it appears that under an office ORDER :no. 353 dated 16th July, 1980, issued by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of the Patratu Thermal Power station, the petitioner was posted in the Fuel and Economy Division and he took charge from Shri A. Pathak, Executive Engineer. Copy of this communication is annexure 10. Thereafter came the two impugned ORDER :s annexures 11 and 12. 4. From what I have stated above the following facts emerge:-- (i) The petitioner's post as a Fuel Technologist was upgraded to the rank of an Executive Engineer by the ORDER :of the Board and in that capacity under the ORDER :s of the Board, work was allotted to him which included looking after the Fuel and Economy Division; (ii) This upgradation and allotment was reiterated by the Board on 28th November, 1979; (iii) The Board upgraded the scale of pay of the Fuel Technologist in the scale of Rs. 1600-1800/-; and, (iv) Consequent upon this upgradation the Fuel Technologist was to have the same power as those of officers of the rank of Superintending Engineer and would be directly responsible to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of the concerned Power station. 5. In the writ petition it has been stated that by the impugned ORDER :s the petitioner's duties and functions as Fuel Technologist have been curtailed illegally and arbitrarily and that these curtailments had been done by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of the Patratu Thermal Power station, respondent no. 2 who had no authority to do so. The work which he was doing as a Fuel Technologist had been given to Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sinha, Electrical Superintending Engineer, by creating a new Circle, Mechanical Maintenance Circle No. III, and he was not qualified to discharge the above work. It has also been stated that the impugned ORDER :s have been passed mala fide at the instance of the Chairman of the Board Shri Z.S. Haque, as the petitioner, as the President of the Bihar State Electricity Board Technical Officers Association, had pointed out various charges of mismanagement, irregularities, and acts of omissions and commissions against the present Chairman and various officers of the Board which had been published in the press in the Searchlight. It has also been stated that the petitioner has pointedly raised a question to the Government that the post of Chairman be filled by an officer of the I.A.S. cadre. According to the petitioner, there is deterioration in the condition of the electric supply in the State of Bihar by the Electricity Board with the induction of technical hand as Chairman who has always interfered with the working of every Department of Engineering section by assuming his superior knowledge in all matters and who has always failed miserably as administrator. Such a technocrat has failed to coordinate the activities of the various departments and to bring up administrative level of the work. 6. In support of this application Mr. B.C. Ghose has submitted that the technical duties which were allotted to the petitioner by annexures 14 and 6 have been taken away and have been handed over to a Superintending Engineer and this has been done by respondent no. 6. In support of this application Mr. B.C. Ghose has submitted that the technical duties which were allotted to the petitioner by annexures 14 and 6 have been taken away and have been handed over to a Superintending Engineer and this has been done by respondent no. 2, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of the Patratu Thermal power station who did not have the authority to do so as the power to take away the work allotted to the petitioner was in the Board itself and it could be delegated only to the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Chief Administrator. He has further submitted that the impugned ORDER :s were in contravention of the JUDGMENT : of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 321 of 1980 and they adversely affect the petitioner in as much as with the change of duties, his status is also affected. By changing the nature of the duties the very post on which the petitioner was working has been materially changed and by this device the petitioner has been reduced in rank by putting him under a Superintending Engineer. It was further submitted that the impugned ORDER :s were the result of mala fides as it had been done on extraneous considerations at the instance of the Chairman. 7. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 by the learned Attorney General and counter affidavits have also been filed on behalf of these two respondents. A rejoined was also filed to the counter affidavits to which a reply was also filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 to which again a further counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner. After hearing had concluded and JUDGMENT : reserved, a further supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner which having been filed at a very late stage, I am not taking into consideration at all. 8. The respondents no. 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit have denied that the impugned ORDER :s are either a (sic) or arbitrary or illegal and have stated that they do not have the effect of reducing the rank of the petitioner. 8. The respondents no. 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit have denied that the impugned ORDER :s are either a (sic) or arbitrary or illegal and have stated that they do not have the effect of reducing the rank of the petitioner. It has been asserted that the nature of the duties which have been assigned to the petitioner are not alien to the duties of a Fuel Technologist and that it was the prerogative of the Management to allocate or assign duties to any of its officers keeping the Board's interest in view. The impugned ORDER :s were issued by respondent no. 2 on the basis of instructions received from respondent no. 1 under memo no. 249 dated 7th February, 1981, copy of which in annexure B. Annexure B is a notification issued by the Board under which various officers of the Board have been transferred and one of them was Shri Ayodhya Pathak who was promoted to officiate as Electrical Superintending Engineer and was posted as Electrical Superintending Engineer, Thermal Power station. According to these respondents, the impugned ORDER :s are purely administrative in nature and are fully within the powers and authority of respondent no. 2. It has also been asserted that respondent no. 2 is quite competent to make allocation of duties and functions amongst his subordinates and that Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sinha, Electrical Superintending Engineer, a well qualified and experienced Engineer has assumed charge of Mechanical Maintenance Circle III with three Divisions under his control including Fuel and Economy Division. According to the respondents the impugned ORDER :s have been issued on the basis of instructions received from respondent no. 1, It may be stated here that respondent no. 1 is the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, through its Chairman Shri Z.S. Haque. 9. The learned Attorney General was right in submitting that since his appointment in the year 1969 as a Fuel Technologist, the petitioner was doing the work of fuel unloading and stocking etc. as is evidenced by paragraph 2 of annexure 14 but on the basis of resolution of the Board the post of a Fuel Technologist was upgraded to the scale of Rs. 1050-1650/- and by annexure 14 the Fuel Technologists were put in charge of the Fuel and Economy Division in a grade equivalent to that of an Executive Engineer. as is evidenced by paragraph 2 of annexure 14 but on the basis of resolution of the Board the post of a Fuel Technologist was upgraded to the scale of Rs. 1050-1650/- and by annexure 14 the Fuel Technologists were put in charge of the Fuel and Economy Division in a grade equivalent to that of an Executive Engineer. It was further made clear by annexure 14 that the Fuel Technologists will exercise the powers of an Executive Engineer delegated by the Board. It was further provided that apart from looking after the Fuel and Economy Division the Fuel Technologist would also look after and study on reducing mill-wear and the problem associated with the fitness of coal resulting from inferior supplies and that the report of the coal tested in the Chemical Laboratory will be submitted to the Fuel Technologist for his study and comments on the quality of coal as also on the quality of furnace oil/LDO and to submit report to the Superintendent Mechanical Maintenance). He would also look after the problem of combustion of coal in the Boiler due to inferior supplies and maintain liaison with the Central Fuel Research Institute. Annexure 14, therefore, also shows that at that stage the Fuel Technologist having the rank of Executive Engineer, was to work under the Superintendent (Mechanical Maintenance) and we have been informed that such superintendents are now designated as Superintending Engineer. Annexure 6 reiterated whatever was said in annexure 14 and therein it is also stated that the Fuel Technologist will work under the control of the Electrical Superintending Engineer (Mechanical Maintenance). Thereafter, by annexure 2/a the Board upgraded the scale of pay of the Fuel Technologist to Rs. 1600-1800/- and annexure 4 states the consequence of it which is that "Consequent upon this upgradation the Fuel Technologist will have the same power as those of officers of the rank of Superintending Engineer. The Fuel Technologist will be directly responsible to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer/Chief Engineer concerned of the Power Station". 10. It is not in dispute that an Executive Engineer holds charge of a Division and a Superintending Engineer of a Circle. The Fuel Technologist will be directly responsible to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer/Chief Engineer concerned of the Power Station". 10. It is not in dispute that an Executive Engineer holds charge of a Division and a Superintending Engineer of a Circle. By going through the aforesaid annexures it is obvious that no circle was created for a Fuel Technologist but in view of his upgradation, he was given the same powers as those of the officers of the rank of Superintending Engineer and was, therefore, made directly responsible to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer. 11. The discussions so far clearly go to show shat the petitioner was not only given the same power as those of the officers of the rank of a Superintending Engineer but his duties were also assigned and all this had been done under the ORDER :s of the Board. It is not in dispute that the Board is the highest authority of the Electricity Board. It is also not in dispute that two impugned ORDER :s annexures 11 and 12 have not been issued by the Board. By annexure 11 the Fuel and Economy Division which was being looked after by a Fuel Technologist has been taken away and given to the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Maintenance Circle No. III. By referring to annexure 12, it is further clear that the Fuel Technologist will report to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer and, therefore, it becomes obvious that he would no longer be in charge of Fuel and Economy Division because by annexure 11 it has been put under the control of the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Maintenance Circle No. III. Annexure 12 which is another ORDER :of respondent no. 2 and not of respondent no. 1 i.e. the Board states that the Mechanical Maintenance Circle No. III will be in charge for coal handling right from mines to the bunkers with all its accounting etc. and the ORDER :s dated 16th July, 1980 and 18th July, 1980 by which the petitioner was incharge of Fuel and Economy Division have been taken away. Annexure 12 further provides that the Fuel Technologists would now perform the functions of taking sample of coal at colliery and have them tested at the laboratory at Patratu and shall obtain report from Chemical Laboratory, study the same and give his comment on the quality of coal and also quality of furnace oil and LDO. Annexure 12 further provides that the Fuel Technologists would now perform the functions of taking sample of coal at colliery and have them tested at the laboratory at Patratu and shall obtain report from Chemical Laboratory, study the same and give his comment on the quality of coal and also quality of furnace oil and LDO. He would also study problem of combustion of coal in the boiler due to inferior supplies and to prepare reports for sending to Coal India Limited and the Central Electricity Authority. 12. According to the petitioner the Fuel and Economy Division had been allotted to him by the Board and, therefore, it could not be taken away under the ORDER :s of respondent no. 2, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Patratu Thermal Power station as he did not have the power to do so. There it substance in this submission. I have already pointed out that taking into account annexure 14, annexure 6 and annexure 2/a, it is obvious that the petitioner had been given, charge of the Fuel and Economy Division together with some additional work by the Board and it has not been shown that respondent no. 2 had the power under the rules or had been authorised by the Board to take away that Division from the petitioner. 13. According to the learned Attorney General the dispute is concluded by the pleadings inasmuch as respondent no. 2 has issued the impugned office ORDER :s on the basis of instruction received from respondent no. 1 and this fact has not been denied by the petitioner in his reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2. It has further been argued that there is a presumption of regularity which attaches to official acts and which has not been controverted in the instant case. I am unable to agree to this submission. In his petition, the petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 48 that the respondent no. 2, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer had no authority in law to re-allocate the duties and functions of the Fuel Technologists. It is, therefore, clear that the authority of respondent no. 2 to take away the Fuel and Economy Division had been challenged by the petitioner. In his petition, the petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 48 that the respondent no. 2, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer had no authority in law to re-allocate the duties and functions of the Fuel Technologists. It is, therefore, clear that the authority of respondent no. 2 to take away the Fuel and Economy Division had been challenged by the petitioner. By merely saying that it had been done under the authority of the Board does not exonerate the respondents from establishing that it had been done under the ORDER :s of the Board. No ORDER :of the Board has been produced to show that the Board directed that the Fuel and Economy Division should be taken away from the petitioner. 14. It was also alternatively argued that the factual controversy cannot be resolved in favour of the petitioner within the scope of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution which does not resemble to trial of a suit and in this context it was pointed out that annexures 11 and 12 both maintain the scale of pay as well as the rank described earlier with regard to the petitioner. In the absence of any rule authorising respondent no. 2 to take away a Division from the petitioner which had been allotted to him under the ORDER :s of the Board, a mere statement on oath by respondent no. 2 that he had been authorised to do so by the Board is not enough to show that the Division had been taken away under the ORDER :s of the Board. 15. It was next contended by the learned Attorney General that under Annexure B Shri Ayodhya Pathak had been promoted to the rank of a Superintending Engineer and had been posted to Patratu Thermal power Station by the Board and Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sinha who was already, working there as an Electrical Superintending Engineer had not been trained. It was, therefore, incumbent upon respondent no. 2 to make arrangements for posting of Shri Ayodhya Pathak as Electrical Superintending Engineer at Patratu Thermal Power Station. Merely because Shri Ayodhya Pathak had to be accommodated as an officiating Electrical Superintending Engineer at Patratu Thermal Power Station it cannot be held that respondent no. It was, therefore, incumbent upon respondent no. 2 to make arrangements for posting of Shri Ayodhya Pathak as Electrical Superintending Engineer at Patratu Thermal Power Station. Merely because Shri Ayodhya Pathak had to be accommodated as an officiating Electrical Superintending Engineer at Patratu Thermal Power Station it cannot be held that respondent no. 2 was at liberty to take away a Division allotted to the petitioner by the Board and include it in a new Circle for accommodating both Shri Ayodhya Pathak and Shri Rameshwer Prasad Sinha at Patratu Thermal Power Station. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the Board had directed, as is stated in annexure 12 that annexures 10 and 10/a which were in respect of the Fuel and Economy Division, were being cancelled under the ORDER :s of the Board. 16. Whether a new Circle had to be created or not for an Electrical Superintending Engineer at Patratu Thermal Power Station does not specifically fall for consideration in this case, and therefore, it is not necessary to go into the arguments advanced at the Bar, particularly by Mr. B.C. Ghose who by reference to the Bihar State Electricity Board (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1973, argued that the proposals for creation of new offices, namely, Circle, Division, Sub-divisions, Sections etc. should be placed for consideration of the Board and its decision shall be final. But what is obvious is that the Fuel and Economy Division could not be taken away from the petitioner by respondent no. 2. I have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that annexure 11 to the extent that it allots the Fuel and Economy, Division to Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sinha, Electrical Superintending Engineer, cannot the upheld, nor annexure 12 which cancels annexures 10 and 10/a. 17. Mr. Ghose had also urged that by the impugned ORDER :s there was loss of status and the petitioner's rank was reduced and a stigma was cast on him and in support of this, has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1970 SC 77. The learned Attorney General on the other hand, contended that there was no reduction in the rank of the petitioner by the impugned ORDER :s nor any stigma had been cast and reliance was placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) K. Gopaul v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1967 SC 1864). The learned Attorney General on the other hand, contended that there was no reduction in the rank of the petitioner by the impugned ORDER :s nor any stigma had been cast and reliance was placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) K. Gopaul v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1967 SC 1864). In the view that I have taken, it is not necessary to decide this point. 18. Reliance was also placed by Mr. Ghose on annexure 3 wherein it is stated that the posts of Fuel Technologists are declared non-transferable and the effect of the impugned ORDER :s is that the petitioner has been transferred in as much as the main work allotted to him had been taken away and only additional duties, which had been given to him earlier had been left. The learned Attorney General, on the other hand, contended that where public authority is entrusted by a statute with a discretionary power to be exercised for the public good, it can neither divest itself of such power nor can it fetter itself with the use of such power. It was therefore, submitted that the ORDER :declaring the post of the Fuel Technologists as non-transferable was not binding on the Board or the Chairman. It is again not necessary to decide this point. 19. Lastly, Mr. Ghose had also contended that the impugned ORDER :s had been passed mala fide at the instance of the Chairman of the Board as he had grievances against the petitioner. The allegations of mala fides in the petition are that the petitioner, as the President of the Technical Officers Association of the Bihar State Electricity Board, had levelled certain charges which I have enumerated above against the Chairman which had been published in an issue of the Searchlight and that the petitioner had agitated against the appointment of Shri Haque as the Chairman as he was a technocrat and as such would not succeed as an administrator. The allegations are too vague inasmuch as it has not been brought to our notice as to what specific charges the petitioner had made which had been published in the Searchlight nor is there any statement to indicate as to how the petitioner opposed the appointment of Shri Haque as the Chairman. The allegations are too vague inasmuch as it has not been brought to our notice as to what specific charges the petitioner had made which had been published in the Searchlight nor is there any statement to indicate as to how the petitioner opposed the appointment of Shri Haque as the Chairman. I am, therefore, unable to hold that the impugned ORDER :s have been passed mala fide at the instance of the Chairman Shri Haque. 20. Learned Attorney General has urged that whatever rights the petitioner has are not the results of any statutory provision as there is no rule or regulation creating the posts of Fuel Technologists. It is an ex-padre post to which no right or duties had been created by any statute and in such a situation the alleged violation of an administrative ORDER :cannot be remedied by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the case of (2) Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani V.M.M. Shah (A.I.R. 1966 SC 334) in which it was held that any duty or obligation falling upon a public servant, out of a contract entered into by him as such public servant cannot be enforced by the machinery of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. That observation was made on the finding that the appellant in that case had been appointed as a Manager by the Custodian by virtue of his power under Section 10(2)(b) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, is contractual, in its nature, and there is no statutory obligation as between him and the appellant. However, in that very case it was pointed out that mandamus may be granted in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of the officer to discharge that statutory obligation. In the instant case, I am of the view that it was the duty of respondent no. 2 to carry out the directions and decisions of the Board and by passing the impugned ORDER :s he was disregarding those duties and undoing without authority the directions of the Board. I am, therefore, inclined to the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief that he has sought for. 21. 2 to carry out the directions and decisions of the Board and by passing the impugned ORDER :s he was disregarding those duties and undoing without authority the directions of the Board. I am, therefore, inclined to the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief that he has sought for. 21. In the result, this application is allowed and annexures 11 and 12 are set aside to the extents indicated above. But, in the circumstances of the case, I would make no ORDER :as to costs. 22. Before parting with this case, however, it should further be noted that the arguments in this case were concluded just before the Court closed for summer vacation and JUDGMENT : had been reserved. After reopening and before JUDGMENT : was delivered, a writ application bearing no. 2102 of 1981 was put up for admission before us. In that writ application certain subsequent ORDER :s passed by the Board, after the JUDGMENT : was reserved in this case, have been challenged by the petitioner. The learned Attorney General appeared to oppose the admission of that writ application and he submitted that in view of the subsequent ORDER :s passed by the Board this writ application has become infructuous as no relief can be granted to the petitioner and, therefore, to shorten the litigation, it was desirable that JUDGMENT : should not be delivered in this case and both the applications should be disposed of together. He further submitted that the Court should take notice of subsequent events which had taken place. Mr. B.C. Ghose, on the other hand, submitted that the subsequent writ application had nothing to do with this case and both were independent. He further submitted that the earlier case was a case which had been heard by the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court and there was no application before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the transfer of this case to Patna and in that view also the JUDGMENT : should be delivered in the case. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances I do not think that there is any occasion not to deliver JUDGMENT : in this case. In this context it should be noted that in the other writ application an ORDER :passed by the Board on the 20th of June, 1981, has been challenged. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances I do not think that there is any occasion not to deliver JUDGMENT : in this case. In this context it should be noted that in the other writ application an ORDER :passed by the Board on the 20th of June, 1981, has been challenged. No application was made on behalf of the Board or the respondents stating that the present application has become infructuous. It is only when the petitioner has challenged that ORDER :that this plea is taken. The learned Attorney General has also submitted that in view of the subsequent ORDER :of the Board it was incumbent that that should be taken into account in disposing of this application. I am unable to agree. In the case before us certain ORDER :s passed by respondent no. 2 have been challenged while in the later application it appears that an ORDER :of the Board is challenged. Learned Attorney General has relied upon the case of (3) Paire Lal V. Union of India and others (A.I.R. 1975 SC 650) in which, during the pendency of the hearing of the application itself, certain further ORDER :s had been passed. The petitioner did not make a prayer to amend his application to challenge those ORDER :s. Even after disposal of that application, no prayer for amendment was made in the Supreme Court where the appeal remained pending for about seven years. The prayer was made only after the appeal was concluded. At that stage, the amendment was refused. In this case there is no application for amendment by the petitioner and, as I have pointed out earlier, the respondents, before the filing of the subsequent writ application, never brought to the notice of the Court that another ORDER :had been passed against the petitioner by the Board itself. In that view, there is no occasion to postpone delivering JUDGMENT : in this case. Medini Prasad Singh, J. I fully agree.