Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was working as Project Manager in Sideco Equipment Complex conducted by the respondents. He claims that he was one of the senior-most persons in that category, and has to be promoted as Deputy General Manager, as was done in the case of two of his seniors. His complaint is that without recognising his right to be promoted on the basis of seniority, the second respondent issued Ext.P5 advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Deputy General Managers under the Corporation. Petitioner therefore seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to frame rules relating to service conditions of the first respondent immediately, a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5, and a direction to the respondents to dispose of Ext.P4 representation by promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy General Manager. 2. Petitioner is a graduate, who has also acquired Diploma in Automobile Engineering from the Madras Institute of Technology. That Diploma is said to have been recognised as equivalent to Degree in Engineering by various Governmental and semi-Governmental Institutions and established industrial houses. He was working as Project Manager, SIDECO Auto Engineering Unit, Ernakulam. He was transferred by Ext.P1 order dated 24-6-1982 to be in overall charge of four units at Trivandrum. Promotions upto the posts of Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 750/- and above, were and are even now governed by R.10 of the Staff Regulations of the erstwhile Kerala Small Industries Corporation Ltd, which was one of the predecessors of the first respondent Corporation. The first respondent company was formed by amalgamation of the Kerala State Small Industries Corporation Ltd., and the Kerala State Employment Promotion Corporation Ltd. No regulations were, however, framed in the matter of promotion and other service conditions of employees in scales of salary above Rs.750/-. Posts of Deputy General Managers, Technical & Marketing, were, however, filled up by promotions from the posts of Managers, and Sri.Ramamohan Nair and Sri. V.S. Raghavan, seniors to the petitioner, were so promoted as is evident from Ext.P2. One of them, Shri V.S. Raghavan, is a Diploma-holder. Petitioner, who was otherwise qualified and was fairly senior, therefore, submitted Ext.P4 representation requesting for promotion as Deputy General Manager. It was in the meantime and without considering his request, that Ext.P5 advertisement was issued. V.S. Raghavan, seniors to the petitioner, were so promoted as is evident from Ext.P2. One of them, Shri V.S. Raghavan, is a Diploma-holder. Petitioner, who was otherwise qualified and was fairly senior, therefore, submitted Ext.P4 representation requesting for promotion as Deputy General Manager. It was in the meantime and without considering his request, that Ext.P5 advertisement was issued. According to the petitioner, a condition was also added in that notification excluding the Diploma-holders and persons above 45 years of age, so that the petitioner may not get appointment as Deputy General Manager pursuant thereto. It was in these circumstances that this Original Petition was filed claiming the reliefs mentioned above. In C.M.P. No. 10329 of 1984, it was ordered that appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager will be provisional and subject to the result of the O.P. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated, that the Corporation is not fully owned by the Government and that all the Directors are not Government Officials or Government nominees. Some of them are said to be non-officials, including representatives of Financial Institutions. It is also submitted that the Corporation is not an authority, except for purposes of Part III of the Constitution. The respondents admit that Shri. V.S. Raghavan and Shri. Ramamohan Nair who were seniors to the petitioner as Unit Managers were promoted as Deputy General Managers, and that one of them was only a Diplomate. It is, however, submitted that Shri. V.S. Raghavan has longer service in the Corporation, whereas the petitioner joined the first respondent only in 1978. It is then submitted that the posts of Deputy General Managers were being filled up not only by promotion, but by direct recruitment as well. The claim of the petitioner as the senior-most Manager in the production unit is disputed by the respondents. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot insist, as a matter of right, that he shall be promoted as Deputy General Manager. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot seek any direction from this court, that the respondents shall frame rules governing the service conditions of its employees. It is the respondent's case that the posts which carry salary of Rs.750/- and more are not governed by the provisions of the Kerala Public Services (Consultation by Corporation and Company) Rules, 1971. 4. It is the respondent's case that the posts which carry salary of Rs.750/- and more are not governed by the provisions of the Kerala Public Services (Consultation by Corporation and Company) Rules, 1971. 4. In his reply affidavit, the petitioner refers to the decision reported in 1984 KLT 403, wherein the respondents-Corporation is held to be amenable to Art.226 of the Constitution. Reference is made to Ext.P6 order declaring the Diploma in Automobile Engineering held by the petitioner as equivalent to an Engineering Degree. It is submitted that the respondents cannot claim any unguided discretion to decide the method of appointment of Deputy General Managers, according to their whims and fancies. Ext.P7 order was produced to indicate that the West Coast Electroplating and Automobile Unit, in which the petitioner was working, was taken over by the Corporation as a running concern, and therefore his services in that Unit is liable to be considered to be service in the Corporation. Exts.P10 and P11 orders are produced to indicate that the Government of Kerala has also recognised the Diploma possessed by the petitioner as equivalent to Engineering Degree. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent being a Corporation owned by the State Government is as much bound as a State or any of its instrumentalities to eschew arbitrariness in its actions and to treat its employees in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. It is his case that, admittedly, on previous occasions, Deputy General Managers were appointed by promotion, and in the matter of such appointments Diplomates also were considered. Insistence on direct recruitment, and that too of graduates and within the age limit of 45 years is said to be a device adopted to exclude the the petitioner from claiming appointment as Deputy General Manager. 6. The points which arise for consideration, therefore, are: whether the petitioner can maintain this Original Petition against the Corporation to claim promotion as Deputy General Manager as a matter of right? Can the petitioner challenge the resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Corporation in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India? Is Ext.P5 advertisement inviting applications a device adopted by the respondents to exclude the petitioner from appointment as Deputy General Manager? and, is the petitioner qualified for appointment as Deputy General Manager. 7. Can the petitioner challenge the resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Corporation in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India? Is Ext.P5 advertisement inviting applications a device adopted by the respondents to exclude the petitioner from appointment as Deputy General Manager? and, is the petitioner qualified for appointment as Deputy General Manager. 7. As far as the first point in concerned, it is hardly necessary to assert that the first respondent is an authority amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court, particularly in situations where the complaint against the Corporation is violation of the rights of a citizen under Part III of the Constitution of India. The Full Bench decision of this court reported in 1984 KLT 403 concludes the point against the Corporation. 8. It is true that the scope of such interference is limited to the assertion of rights under Part III of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the petitioner complains that he is being treated differently from other employees of the Corporation in the same category of Project Managers with same qualifications of Diploma; that when his turn for promotion as Deputy General Manager is to be taken up, the post is proposed to be filled up by direct recruitment from graduates only, and that too within 45 years of age. The complaint of the petitioner is therefore of arbitrariness and hostile discrimination, violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such contentions regarding the conduct of the Corporation, which is an authority under Art.12 of the Constitution of India, is therefore liable to be considered by this court. 9. The respondents have no case that the diploma possessed by the petitioner is not sufficient for promotion as Deputy General Manager. Nor do they have a case that the post of Deputy General Manager is not a promotion post at all. They have no case that rules of general application have been framed, providing that the post of Deputy General Manager may be filled up both by promotion and by direct recruitment or in any proportion. The position taken up by the respondents appears to be that it shall depend upon ad hoc determinations by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, and that shall be final determinant in respect of rights of its employees. The position taken up by the respondents appears to be that it shall depend upon ad hoc determinations by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, and that shall be final determinant in respect of rights of its employees. This is hardly a position which can be expected of a statutory corporation, which is subject to the constitutional mandates contained in Art.14 and 16. It is, of course, true that as a commercial and industrial undertaking, the respondents-Corporation is entitled to exercise some discretion as far as its administrative determinations are concerned A large element of expediency is to be recognised in its decision-making process. But such assumptions of expediency shall not go to the extent of insisting that the respondents-Corporation shall not be subjected to any code of conduct of general application in dealing with rights of its employees. It is necessary in this context to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Ramana v. I A Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628: "It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largess including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory." 10. Promotion to higher posts in service is the natural expectation of every employee. Limits can, of course, be set to such expectations, but only in public interest and only by ascertainable standards of general application. Admittedly, there were no such standards set in this case. None have been published. No standards of general application are maintained. Promotion to higher posts in service is the natural expectation of every employee. Limits can, of course, be set to such expectations, but only in public interest and only by ascertainable standards of general application. Admittedly, there were no such standards set in this case. None have been published. No standards of general application are maintained. Admittedly, diplomates had been promoted as Deputy General Managers earlier It may perhaps be open to the Corporation to decide in the exigencies of individual cases that for operating a particular post, a graduate Engineer is essential. But no such reasons are even attempted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation. Counsel for the respondents referred me to the decision reported in Ramesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 1978 (1) SCC 37, wherein it was held that the appointment of an Assistant Engineer by the Bihar State Electricity Board as Executive Engineer in the Telecommunication Division, which was specially created, overlooking the seniority of others for the reason that the former was sent abroad for special training in Tele¬communication, was not arbitrary, It is true it was held that it was not obligatory to make rules of recruitment etc . before a service is constituted or a post is created or filled up, and that in the absence of rules, qualifications for a post can validly be laid down in the self-same executive order creating the service or post and filling it up according to these qualifications. 11. It may, however, be observed that in Remesh Prasad Singh's case, 1978(1) SCC. 37, the appointment to the post which was specially created and required special training, which was possessed only by one of the juniors among the Assistant Engineers. No such special circumstances are pleaded in this case. In the absence of any such special circumstances, that decision cannot have any application here. It may again be emphasised that the undisputed fact in this case is that diplomates like the petitioner were appointed as Deputy General Managers, according to seniority on earlier occasions. Nor is it disputed that promotions to the post of Deputy General Managers were effected in accordance with seniority on prior occasions. We have to appreciate the complaint of the petitioner of a departure from the practice so far adopted when his turn for such promotion drew near. Nor is it disputed that promotions to the post of Deputy General Managers were effected in accordance with seniority on prior occasions. We have to appreciate the complaint of the petitioner of a departure from the practice so far adopted when his turn for such promotion drew near. The defence of the Corporation to the complaint of the petitioner seems to be that the Board of Directors of the Corporation may decide on one occasion that the arising vacancy shall be filled up by direct recruitment and on the other by'promotion. It may decide on one occasion that the Deputy General Manager to be appointed need only be a Diplomate and that it has the power to decide on other occasions that it shall only be a graduate. Likewise, it is claimed that the Corporation may decide that no person below the age of 45 shall be appointed as Deputy General Manager, and only persons of and above the age of 45 need be appointed in that category. It is asserted that if such decisions are incorporated in resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, such decisions are beyond scrutiny by courts under Art.226 of the Constitution. What is claimed by the respondents seems to be an unbridled power and unguided discretion, a right to act according to its whims and fancies. No such unguided discretion, no such unbridled power, no such right to be free from ascertainable standards of general application can be claimed by the instrumentalities of the State, whether it be a Department of State or an Incorporated Company. Ext. P5 being entirely based on the assumption that the respondents-Corporation has got such unbridled power and unguided discretion cannot be sustained. 12. It is evident from Exts. P6, P10 and P11 that the Diploma held by the petitioner has been and was being treated as equivalent to a Degree by the Governmental and quasi-Governmental agencies and established industrial houses. Even apart from that, the Diploma held by Shri V. S. Raghavan was treated as sufficient qualification for promotion as Deputy General Manager. It cannot be that in the case of the petitioner alone that Diploma is insufficient. The petitioner has, therefore, to be treated as qualified for purposes of promotion as Deputy General Manager. 13. Even apart from that, the Diploma held by Shri V. S. Raghavan was treated as sufficient qualification for promotion as Deputy General Manager. It cannot be that in the case of the petitioner alone that Diploma is insufficient. The petitioner has, therefore, to be treated as qualified for purposes of promotion as Deputy General Manager. 13. Though it is asserted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is not the seniormost manager to be promoted as Deputy General Manager, I do not feel called upon to decide that here. The petitioner's claim for being one of the seniormost Managers and therefore entitled for promotion is a matter which the respondents have to consider. In the light of the above, I have to hold that the petitioner is entitled for being considered for appointment as Deputy General Manager under the respondents. He will be treated as fully qualified for such promotion. The question whether he is the seniormost entitled to such promotion will be considered by the respondents. The Original Petition is allowed to the above extent. The respondents will not make any regular appointment pursuant to Ext. P5 advertisement until after the claims of the petitioner for promotion to that post are considered as directed above. However, I make no order as to costs.