Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 14-7-1986 as contained in Memo No.114 issued by the respondent No.2 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application and the order dated 31-7-1985, passed by the respondent No.3 as contained in Annuxers-5 to the writ application. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass, The petitioner at all material times bad been working as Senior Selection Grade Assistant under respondent No.1. It is stated that the respondent No 1 authority is a statutory. The petitioner has asserted that he was initially appointed as a diarist and was eventually designated as clerk-cum-cashier in the Industries Department of the government of Bihar, at Patna. It is further asserted that after the Constitution of Patna Industrial Area Development Authority, the services of the petitioner were transferred to and he was also given his due promotion by the said authority. The petitioner allegedly thereafter was transferred to Barsuni on 21-8-1975 upon constitution of respondent No.1 and consequent upon its absoration by the said authority. The respondent No.4 was absorbed in the respondent No.1 authority on 2-2-1976. The petitioner was promoted as Upper Division Assistant on probation for six months in the scale of pay Rs.348-570 and the same was extended twice. This fact appears from Annexure-6, 7, 8 and 8/1 to the writ application. It appears that the respondent No.4 was absorbed as a lower division Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.260:408 which appears from An-nexure-D to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4. The petitioner has further contended that by an order dated 2-1-1985, he was promoted in the post of Selection Grade by the Board of Directors of respondent No.1 authority under the scale of pay of Rs.850-1360 with retrospective effect from 1-3-1977 as would be evident from Annexure-1 to the writ application. The respondent No.4 on the other hand, was promoted in the post of Upper Division assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.348-570 to the writ application. On or about 4-12-1985 a gradation list was prepared (Annexure-2) wherefrom, it appears that the petitioners name appears at Serial No.1 whereas the name of respondent No.4 appears at Serial No.2. 3. The respondent No.4 on the other hand, was promoted in the post of Upper Division assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.348-570 to the writ application. On or about 4-12-1985 a gradation list was prepared (Annexure-2) wherefrom, it appears that the petitioners name appears at Serial No.1 whereas the name of respondent No.4 appears at Serial No.2. 3. From the aforementioned office order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application it is evident that prior to the same there had been a merger in the cadre of different grades of Assistants. In the said gradation list as against the name of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.4 the dates from which the merged scale of pay became effective, has been shown at 1-3-1977 and 1-7-1981 respectively. From a perusal of the aforementioned office order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application, if further appears that the same was merely provisional in nature and all concerned were advised to submit their objections, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. However, by an order dated 14-7-1986, the respondent No.4 was declared as senior and the order of promotion granted to the petitioner was directed to be cancelled. By the said order itself, the pay granted to the petitioner with retrospective effect and other consequential benefits given to him were directed to be refunded as a result whereof the petitioner was directed to pay back the amount which was allegedly paid to him in excess. The aforementioned order is being impugned in this writ application being Annexure-3 thereof. On 17-7-1986 the respondent No.4 filed a representation as against the said order which was rejected by an order dated 23-7-1986 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application. It may be mentioned here that the representation oi the petitioner is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. Prom a perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, it appears that the respondent No.1 authority took a serious objection with regard to the language used by the petitioner and on that ground censored the petitioner and the same was further directed to be recorded in his service book. This order dated 31-7-1987 is also under challenge in this writ application. 4. However, the matter does not end there. This order dated 31-7-1987 is also under challenge in this writ application. 4. However, the matter does not end there. The Managing Director of the respondent No.1 authority by an office order dated 12-9-1986) as contained annexure-13 to the writ application revised the pay fixation order of the petitioner observing therein that the previous orders were passed by mistake. By another office order dated 1-9-1987 issued under the signature of the Managing Director (Annexure-14), the period of ad hoc promotion granted to the petitioner was extended from 23-11-1986 to 22-5-1987 and again from 23-5-1987 to 22-ll-1987. It was further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to his pay and other emoluments as determined by the authority from time to time. By another office order dated 25-9-1987 (Annexure-15) the aforementioned order dated 1-9-1987 (Annexure 14) was withdrawn. 5. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4. As how cause has also been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. According to respondent Nos.1 to 3, the order of promotion passed in favour of the petitioner in the selection grade was done by mistake. It has further been asserted that the mistake was corrected after the finding of the establishment Committee constituted for that purpose and after an opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner and the respondent No.4. It has further been asserted that the petitioner is guilty ot suppression of material facts. In the said counter affidavit it has further been stated as follows:- "that Respondent No.4 was appointed on 9-1-1959 as Clerk-cum-Typist in the office of the Industries Department at Muzaffarpur in the scale of Rs.50-90 whereas the petitioner was appointed from time to time as stated below :- (a) He was appointed on 16-8-1962 as and Routine Clerk in the industries Department for a fixed period of six months the on a fixed pay of Rs.50 per month only. (b) On 16-2-1963, the petitioner was appointed as a Routine Clerk in the same department for a fixed period of six months on a fixed salary of Rs.50 per month only. (c) On 16-6-1963. The petitioner was again appointed as a Routine clerk in the same Department for a fixed period of six months on a fixed pay of Rs.50 per month only. (c) On 16-6-1963. The petitioner was again appointed as a Routine clerk in the same Department for a fixed period of six months on a fixed pay of Rs.50 per month only. (d) On 16-2-1964, the petitioner was appointed as a lower Division assistant in the same department in the scale of Rs.75-150 and bis salary was fixed at Rs.75 per month. (e) On 1-3-1964, the petitioner was appointed as computer in same deparment in the pay scale of Rs.75-150 and his salary was fixed at Rs.120 per month. (f) On 27-10-1964, the petitioner was appointed as a compiler in the same department on a fixed pay of Rs.70 per month. (g) On 27-4-196s the petitioner was appointed as a compiler in the same department on ad hoc basis as before. (h) On 1-1-1968, the petitioner was appointed as a clerk-cum-cashier in the establishment of the Industrial Area, Patna under the industries department in the scale of Rs.150-230 (oldscale of rs.80-120) on a post created on 23-3-1965. This was the first regular appointment of the petitioner on a salary of Rs.150 whereas Respondent No.4, who was appointed on 9-1-1959 was enjoying on this date a salary of Rs.160. On 5-8-1964, the respondent No.4 was in the pay scale of Rs.150-200 (old-scale of Rs.80-120) and was drawing a pay of Rs.150 per month. (i) On 1-3-1974, the services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of Patna Industrial Area Development Authority in the revised scale of Rs.284-372 and his salary was fixed at rs.348 per month. (j) On 23-5-1974, the petitioner was promoted as Upper Division assistant in the scale of Rs.348-570 at a salary fixed at Rs.348 per month and he was transferred of Industrial Area, barauni, by the Managing Director, who controlled both the units. (k) On 22-11-1974, the petitioners promotion to the post of Upper division Assistant was extended for a further period of six months in the above stated scale. (l) On 23-5-1975, the promotion of the petitioner as Upper Division assistant was further extended for a fixed period of further six months. " 6 After expiry of the period of six months on 23-11-1975 there was no further extension of promotion of the petitioner as Upper Division Assistant and, as such, the petitioner bad reverted back to the post of clerk-cum-cashier w. e. f.23-11-1175 in the scale of Rs.284-372. 7. " 6 After expiry of the period of six months on 23-11-1975 there was no further extension of promotion of the petitioner as Upper Division Assistant and, as such, the petitioner bad reverted back to the post of clerk-cum-cashier w. e. f.23-11-1175 in the scale of Rs.284-372. 7. It has further been stated that although the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Upper Division Clerk stood terminated with effect from 23-11-1975 he manipulated to draw the salary of Upper Division Assistant although was reverted to the post of lower Division Clerk from the aforementioned date as the period of six months for which he was promoted has elapsed. It has further been asserted that the petitioner who had been continuiug in the establishment section of respondent Nos.1 and 8 manipulated to draw the salary of Upper division Clerk and got the entries made in tne service book in his own handwriting and thus manipulated also his promotion as contained in Annexure-1 to tne writ application. The respondent No.4 thereafter filed a representation which is contained in Annexure-2 to the show cause filed on behalf of respondent Nos-1 to 3 and no basis thereof an Establishment Committee was set up constituting five persons. Thereafter the Establishment Committee heard both the petitioner and respondent No.4 at length and ultimately came to the conclusion that respondent No.4 was senior to the petitioner a copy of the report of tie Establishment committee is contained is Anncxure-C to the said show cause. 8. The respondent No.2 by an order dated 14- 7-1986 relying on or on the basis of the aforementioned report of the Establishmen t Committee cancelled the promotion of the petitioner to Selection grade which was done by mistake and promoted the petitioner therein. It has further been asserted that even thereafter, the petitioner manipulated, being incharge of the Establishment Division, to draw salary in the scale of pay of Upper Division Assistant. It has further been asserted that the petitioner was merely entitled to draw a salary of rs.348 in the scale of pay of Rs.284-372 whereas the respondent No.4 was drawing the salary of 364. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respo ndent No.4 more or less the aforementioned facts as stated in the show cause filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3 have been stated. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respo ndent No.4 more or less the aforementioned facts as stated in the show cause filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3 have been stated. In the said counter affidavit various other orders and relevant documents have been mentioned in details and annexed thereto. It is relevant to mention paragraphs 25 of the said counter affidavit which reads as follows : "the facts stated above, supported by documents, demonstrate the following : - (i) That before being transferred to the Authority in the original department of Industrial and Technical Education this deponent was appointed as Assistant Accountant-cum-cashier in the muffassal Upper Division scale (viz Rs.150-300 with effect from 1-4-1964 and Rs.284-372 with effect from 1-1-1971) with effect from 18-6-1964, and this deponent was appointet subs-tantively and confirmed on the said post in that scale with effect form 1-4-1973 as whereas the petitioner was appointed in the said scale clerk-cum-cashier from a later date, namely 27-10-65 in the same scale, and he was never confirmed in the post of clerk-cum-cashier ; " (ii) That a time when this deponent was still in the department of industries and Technical Education, the petitioner who had been already transferred first to the Industrial Area Development authority, Patna, and thereafter to the Authority, Patna, and thereafter to the Authority, at Muzafferpur was appointed as a temporary Upper Division Assistant under the Authority on Rs.1348-670 for a period of six months only with effect from the 23rd May, 1974, and this temporary promotion was extended by two more terms, each for six months, the last ending on the 22nd November, 1975. From the 23rd November, 1975 the petitioner was no more Upper Division Assistant but reverted to his lower post of clerk-cum-cashier in the scale of 284-372; (iii) That the post of Selection Grade Upper Division Assistant Rs.505-565 was sanctioned by the Authority on the 29th September, 1973, with the condition that the post should be tilled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. At the time this post was sanctioned the petitioner was not on Upper Division Assistant but only a clerk-cum-cashier in the lower scale of pay ; (iv) That the promotion of the petitioner as Upper Division Assistant having cessed on the 22nd November, 1975, he could never be treated as senior to this deponent. At the time this post was sanctioned the petitioner was not on Upper Division Assistant but only a clerk-cum-cashier in the lower scale of pay ; (iv) That the promotion of the petitioner as Upper Division Assistant having cessed on the 22nd November, 1975, he could never be treated as senior to this deponent. This is apart from the fact that in Industries and Technical Education Department also he was junior to this deponent; (v) That for promotion to the post of Selection Grade Upper Division assistant the seniority between this deponent and the petitioner was never determined, in fact, as already stated, the petitioner was on the date of the sanction of the Selection Grade Upper division Assistant only a clerk-cum-accountant in the lower scale of pay, whereas this deponent was an Upper Division assistant; (vi) That the promotion of the petitioner as Selection Grade Upper division Assistant with effect from the 5th March, 1979, by the order dated the 22nd February, 1979, was completely based on mistaken facts because it was not noticed that on that date the petitioner was only a clerk-cum-cashies; (vii) That further, the question of the petitioner being appointed retrospectively as Selection Grade Upper Division Assistant with effect from the 1st March, 1977, could never arise because apart from the facts stated above, there was no sanctioned post of selection Grade Upper Division Assistant on that date. " 10. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hat raised the following contentions:- (1) the petitioner having been appointed and/or absorbed by the respondent no.1 authority earlier to that of the respondent No.1 authority earlier to that of the respondent No.4, he was senior to him on the basis of the principles enunciated by the Establishment Committee itself. In this view of the matter, the same was bad in law. (2) The order of promotion as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application having been passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent No.1 authority, the Managing Director thereof could not have passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3. (3) In any event the said order could not have been given retrospective effect nor there by the petitioner could be directed to refund the salary drawn by him. (3) In any event the said order could not have been given retrospective effect nor there by the petitioner could be directed to refund the salary drawn by him. (4) The order as contained in Annexure-5 have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing and on a ground which does not exceed in fact, the same is had in law. Re-question Nos.1 to 3 : mr. Chaubey has submitted that the petitioner has admittedly joined on 1-3-1974. The learned counsel contended that even assuming the petitioners services in the respondent No.1 authority is to be reckoned from the that when patna Industrial Development authority merged with respondent No.1 Authority i. e. on 21-8-1975 still then he was not senior to the respondent No.4 who was absorbed by the respondent No.1 authority only with effect from 2-2-1976. The learned counsel has further drawn my attention to Annexure-1 to the writ application and submitted that where as the respondent No.4 was given promotion in the post of lower Division Assistant on 2-2-1976, the petitioner was promoted to the Selection Grade post on 1-3-1977. The respondent No.4 at that time was working as lower Division Assistant and was later on promoted only on 2-5-1977 in the post of Upper Division Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.348- 70. Tho learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is evidently senir to the respondent No.4 as he was promoted to a higher post earlier to the respondent No.4. The learned counsel has further submitted that in any event the retrospective effect and retrospective operation given to the order dated 14-7-1986 (Annexure-3) whereby and whereunder his promotion was cancelled with effect from 1-3-1977, must be held to be wholly, unjust and arbitrary. According to the learned counstl, the petitioner having actually worked in the said post and any event the order of promotion dated 2-1-1985 which came into force with retrospective effect from 1-3-1977 being not invalid in law, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the salary and other emoluments drawn by him in bis promoted post i. e. in the post of Selection Grade Assistant. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner in guilty of practicing fraud on the Management. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner in guilty of practicing fraud on the Management. It has further been pointed that as the petitioner has manipulated several documents and the same became possible to be done by him as he was incharge of the establishment section. 12. In this connection my attention has been drawn to Annexure-9 and 9/1 to the counter affidavit i. e. the office order dated 28-8-1986 when in it has been stated that the petitioner was promoted to the Upper Division Assistant only for a period of six months on ad hoc basis by an order dated 23-5-1974, but the same was extended again for a period of six month by an order dated 1-7-1975. It has been mentioned therein that after 22-11-1975 the services of the petitioner in the aforementioned promoted post was not extended. Although by reason of annexure-9/1 his services were purported to have been extenned by several periods of six months upto 22-11-1986, the same was illegal. It has further been argued that even by reason;of Annexure-9 and 9/1 as referred to hereinbefore only his scale of pay was directed to be fixed and not his seniority. In this connection my attention has been drawn to paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4 which reads as follows :- "that this very important fact that the petitioner was not an Upper division Assistant after the 22nd November, 1975, was completely concealed by the petitioner who actually was dealing with the establishment matter of the office of the Authority and by an office note dated the 20th March, 1973, recorded by himself, while processing the matter relating to the creation of a post.-of selection Grade upper division Assistant, the petitioner himself suggested that, when the post in sanctioned, he should be promoted to the said post retrespectively with effect from the 1st March, 1977. " 13. " 13. My attention was further drawn to Annexure-1 to the said counter affidavit, where from it appears that the petitioner in his own pen recommended his own case on 7-2-1979 for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk with effect from the date, he joined at Ramnagar itself and only pursuant to the aforementioned note, which he drew in his own favour, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application was issued My attentioned has further been drawn to Annexure-G to the counter affidavit for the purpose of showing that the petitioner was promoted on ad-hoc basis for Ram Nagar only by an order dated 22-7-1979. My attention has further been drawn to the statements made in paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit as quoted hereinbefore for the purpose of showing as to how the events took place Annexure-6 it appears that the selection committee had decided to promote the petitioner to one of the vacant post on probation for six months and transferred him to Barauni for that purpose. However, by reason of Annexu e-7 it is evident that he was appointed temporarily only for a period of six months and from a perusal of the order of promotion as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. It becomes evident that the petitioner was promoted for a period of six months only and. was not put on probation for a period of six months. 14. The aforementioned position becomes clear from the order dated 1-7-1975 as contained in Annexure-8/1 to the writ application whereby and where under the aforementioned period of six monies was extended to a further period of six months i. e. from 23-5-1979. In this view of the matter there is no doubt that the petitioner was only promoted on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months only with effect from 2nd May, 1974 and admittedly in view of the fact that he was granted two extentions of six months each, he was entitled to bold that post till 22-11-1975. In this connection reference may be made to Annexure-G to the counter affidavit, wherefrom it appears that the petitioner was again promoted in the scale of pay of Rs.500-516-563-665 on ad-hoc basis only for Ram nagar. In this connection reference may be made to Annexure-G to the counter affidavit, wherefrom it appears that the petitioner was again promoted in the scale of pay of Rs.500-516-563-665 on ad-hoc basis only for Ram nagar. It is also pertinent to mention here that the post of Selection Grade upper Division Assistant was created for the first time after the post sanctioned in terms of Finance Department Order No.3845 dated 22-4-1977 and the same and received by the respopdent No.1. From the office order dated 22-10-1973 as contained in Annexure-F to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respodent No.4 it would appear that only on 22-10-1978, direction waf issued to take steps for placing Upper Division Assistant in the Selection Grade in the pay-scale of Rs.505-15-665-20-665 on temporary basis of the basis of seniority-cum-merit. 15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner however, has drawn my attention to Annexure-12 i. e. the letter of Finance Department dated 22nd April, 1977 where in it has bean mentioned that the post of Selection grade Upper Division Clerk has been sanctioned with effect from 1-3-1977. Although it is true that the Board of Directors while adopting a resolution on 29-9-1978 (Annexure-F) to the counter affidavit and Annexure 12/1 to there-joinder filed on behalf of petitioner, ther aforementioned litter of the Government has been referred to by the but it is evident that the post was to be fil led up only thereafter i. e. after 22-10-1971 and not with retrospective effect from 1-3-1977. 16. Plainly enough as the post of Selection Grade of the Upper Division assistant was created for the first time on 22-10-1978, the question of the petitioners having been promoted with retrospective effect from 1-3-1977 as purported to be done by reason of the office order dated 2-1-1985 done not arise. It further appears to be curious that a person who had no claim to be promoted to the Selection Grade Upper Division Clerk on his own right, in view of the facts stated hereinbefore was promoted by an order dated 2-1-1985 with retrospective effect from 1.3-1977 without considering the case of the Respondent No.4. Such an order on the face of it, without there being any cogent reason therefor appears to be highly arbitrary. Such an order on the face of it, without there being any cogent reason therefor appears to be highly arbitrary. Such an order of promotion with retrospective effect or giving a national seniority to the peron arises only in an event;of such promotion being primarily denied to a person for long time, although he was entitled in law therefore. There appears to be no justification whatsoever for giving promotion to the petitioner with retrospective effect and the Managing director of the respondent authority went out of his way in passing such order. 17. I am further surprised to note that by reason of Annexure-9/1 to the writ application, the salary drawn by the petitioner for a period after 22-11-1975 was sought to b; regularised by giving him 20 extension of six months each at a time. i. e. by an order dated 28-8-1986. 18. From the facts as stated hereinbefore, it is absolutely clear that neither any rule of law nor any roll of fair play was prevailing in the respondent authority. A state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution would be governed by rules of law and not by rules of men. I am pained to find that the public authority has been squandering with the public money in such a reckless manner. Such arbitrary and whimsical actions on the part of the authority which id a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution must be deprecated. I am also of the opinion that the petitioner, who was merely a Dealing Assistant of the establishment section could not put up a note recommending his own case for promotion to Selection Grade Upper Division assistant with effect from 1-3-1977 as appeared from Annexure-1 and J to the, counter affidavit and it is evident that the Managing Director of the respondent authority appreved the same without taking into consideration that the petitioner was no body to recommend his own case. The Managing Director was bound to consider as to whether the promotion should be given to the petitioner after applying his own independent mind, he should not have done so on the basis of note issued by the petitioner further be neither called for a report from the concerned officers not appears to have perused the file himself. The Managing Director was bound to consider as to whether the promotion should be given to the petitioner after applying his own independent mind, he should not have done so on the basis of note issued by the petitioner further be neither called for a report from the concerned officers not appears to have perused the file himself. It is all the more surprising that inspite of the order dated 14-7-1986 as contained in annex ure-3 to the writ. applicatior; the petitioner continued to draw his salary in the scale of pay admissible to a Selection Grade Upper Division Clerk. 19. It is true that the petitioner was promoted on a purely temporary basis for Rama Nagar in the post of Selection Grade Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.500-565 by the order dated 22-2-1977 as contained in Annexure-G to the counter affidavit. But before that the inter se seniority by and between the petitioner and Respondent No.4 was not determined. The Respondent No.4 thereafter submitted a representation on 27-4-1979, but during the pendency of the representation the Respondent No.4 was promoted to newly created post of selection Grade Upper Division Assistant with effect from 1-7-1981 by an order dated 21-8-1981 as contained in Annexure-1. 20. However, it is evident that the representation of the Respondent No.4 was not disposed of by them. It is surprising that even at this juncture, the petitioner was promoted, and as mentioned hereinbefore, by throwing all norms the winds, the order promotion with retrospective effect from 1-3-1977 was passed in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 2-1-1985 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. Even that point of time the gradation list was not prepared and inter-se seniority by and between the petitioner and the Respondent no.4 was not determined. A Provisional Gradation List was published only on 4-12-1985 as it appears from Annexure-2 to the writ application. The Respodent no.4 again submitted a representation challenging the Provisional Gradation List on 12-1 2-1985. 21. Pursuant to the aforementioned representations of the respondent no.4, the Managing Director in exercise of its delegated authority constituted on establishment Committee. In my opinion, the constitution of such Establishment committee was within the demain of the Managing Director in view of regulations 33 and 34 which read as follows :- "33. 21. Pursuant to the aforementioned representations of the respondent no.4, the Managing Director in exercise of its delegated authority constituted on establishment Committee. In my opinion, the constitution of such Establishment committee was within the demain of the Managing Director in view of regulations 33 and 34 which read as follows :- "33. Subject to established procedures :- (a) The Authority may make appointment to the posts of officers of the authority carrying salary less than 1000 per month. (b) The Managing Director may make appointments to the posts of all staff other than the officers of the Authority.34. The Authority or Managing Director as the case may be shall exercise disciplinary control over its employees: provided that in the case of employees on loan from State Government, or Central Government, the authority or the Managing Director, as the case may be call for an explanation from the defaulting employees and shall after due enquiry submit to the State Government or central Government as the case may be, a report giving fill details of the case for the necessary disciplinary action agains at the defaulting employees. " 22 At this juncture an objection raised by Mr. Chaubey the leirned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner may be disposed of Mr. Cbaubey, submitted that the deparmental promotion committee, who recommended for petitioners promotion was constituted under the orders of the Board of Directors and so such the Managing Director had no jurisdiction to constitute an establishment Committee so as to set at nought the decision of the promotion committee 23. It is evident that in view of the regulations 33 and 34 and as quoted hereinbefore, the power of the Managing Director in relation to the officers drawing a salary of 100 per month is absolute one. He is the appointing authority in relation to such it past and as such must be held that has possess all the powers furelation thereto. The Managing Director also exercises disciplinary control over such employees. Further it is well known that tha seniority of a person is not conferred but is acquired by him. 24. He is the appointing authority in relation to such it past and as such must be held that has possess all the powers furelation thereto. The Managing Director also exercises disciplinary control over such employees. Further it is well known that tha seniority of a person is not conferred but is acquired by him. 24. In this connection reference may be mande to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gay a Prasad Pandey and another V/s. The State of Bihar and others (1972 PLJR 464; wherein it has observed as follows :- "according to the rules then existing the petitioners were senior to the respondents. The seniority of a person in Government service, in my opinion, does not depend how it is fixed by the authority concerned. It stands automatically determined according to the existing rules. The proposition of the seniority list by the authority concerned is a mere formal matter if the authority commits any mistake in preparing the seniority list and it it not found in accordance with the rule, the mistake must be corrected. " It may further be mentioned that the gradation list as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application was provisional in nature. The purported promotion of the petitioner was also purely temporary in nature. If, therefore, a mistake has been committed in the said orders, it was within the jurisdiction, may it was the bounded duty of the authorities concerned to rectify such mistake. There is no denial of this fact that in view of the aforementioned representations filed by the Respondent No.4, the Establishment Committee gave opportunity of hearing to both the parties. A copy of the minutes of meeting of the Establishment committee dated 29-4-1986 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3, from ,a perusal whereof it appears that the petitioner as well as the Respondent No.4 were heard. From annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, it appears that in the aforementioned meeting dated 29-4-1966 and the subsequent meetings, the Establishment Committee after taking into consideration the facts of the case as also the various decisions of the High Court and Supreme court came to the conclusion that the promotion granted to the petitioner and that too with retrospective effect was wholly illegal. The committee, therefore, recommended purported to be in terms of the Government circulars that the petitioner ought not have been granted promotion with retrospective effect. It was further recommended that no order of promotion ought to have been passed in favour of the petitioner as the Respondent No.4 was senior to the petitioner. 25. Pursuant to the aforementioned recommendation, the Managing director of the Respondent No.1 by his order dated 12-7-1986 as contained in annexure-F to the counter affidavit accepted the said recommendation and further directed that if any party felt that the said order was unjustified, he may prefer an appeal to the Government through proper channel. 26. From a perusal of the writ application, it does not appear that the petitioner availed the opportunity, of preferring any appeal to the competent authority and thereby challenging the findings of fact arrived at by the Eastblishment committee which were arrived of after giving opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners and the respondent No.4 In the finding of fact arrived at by the establishment committee, serious irregularities were pointed out and the said findings of fact are binding upon this court. The said findings of fact in my opinion, cannot be permitted to be re-opcued in a writ petition. 27. Thereafter, She impugned order dated 14-7-1986 as contained in annexure-3 to the writ application was passed, but that was not to be the end of the matter. By reason of an order dated 23-8-1986 (Annexure-9) the petitioners promotion was extended from 23-11-1975 to 22-11-1980. i. e. by granting 10 six monthly extensions. However, in the said order, it was clearly mentioned that the earlier promotion was on an ad-hoc basis. Again, by an order dated 12-9-1986, the petitioner is earlier ad-hoc appointment was made regular with effect from 1-6-1977.3y reason of the self same order his pay was also fixed, but the seniority of Respondent No 4 over the petitioner continued to remain. 28. The aforementioned facts clearly depict a sordid state of affairs prevailing in the Respondent No. i authority. It is evident that neither any rule of law was followed nor the discretionary power was exercised in a fair and just manner. 28. The aforementioned facts clearly depict a sordid state of affairs prevailing in the Respondent No. i authority. It is evident that neither any rule of law was followed nor the discretionary power was exercised in a fair and just manner. Particularly, the order dated 2-1-1985 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application as also the orders dated 28-8-1986 and 12-9-1986 as contained in Annexures-9 and 9/1 to the writ application appears to be arbitrary, whimsical and capricious such type of orders are not expected to be passed by a body like that of the Respondent No.1 authority. The respondent No.1 authority is a state within the3 meaning of Article 12 of the constitution and as such all its action must confirm to the provisions of law and fair-play-The respondent No.1 authority being state within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution cannot act arbitrarily or compriciously so as to effect, the fundamental rights of other employees as enshrined under Articles 14 and l6 of the constitution. It is also not expected that it would throw all the procedures and norms to the winds and passed orders resulting in hugs loss of public money. The petitioner evidently appears to bs a very influential persons so as to obtain favourable orders even after recommendations to the contrary, made by t bs establishment Committee, which was accepted by the Managing Director himself. 29. In such a situation it is indeed curious the petitioner even thereafter continued to draw the salary admissible to a Selection Grade Upper Division clerk and managed to obtain the orders as contained in Annsxures-9 and 9/1 to the writ application at a much later date. In the meanwhile i. e. in between 14-7-1986 when Annexure-3. Clerly enough even the supervisory authorities failed to perform their duties such types of arbitrary orders are bound to be deprecated and I do so. 30. From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that by issuing the order as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, the respondent No.1 merely rectified its mistake in the case of K. B. Sharma V/s. Transport Commissioner of U. P. , AIR 1963 Allahabad 276 it has been held as follows :- "an order of confirmation if passed under same mistake can certainly be revised with a view to correct the mistake. Such an order being an administrative order. Such an order being an administrative order. There is nothing in law to prevent its being revised if circumstances so warrant. An order of conflrnration founded on wrong basis when revised would no doubt result in lowering the position of a person confirmed prior in the seniority list, but it cannot amount to reduction in rank and does not attract Article 311 of the Constitution. " In the case of Central Manbhum Coal (Corp) Ltd. and another V/s. The Additional collector, Dhanbad and others, A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reported in ( AIR 1983 Cal 95 ) it has been held as follows :- "having considered the contentions of the respective parties in the light of the decisions cited before us we are of the view that a tribunal can, even in the absence of specific powers rectify its own mistake in exercise of the inherent power for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of its process. It is true of course that this power cannot and should not be exercised to reverse every wrong order made by it but should be exercised sparingly when the mistake is claring and rectification of which is absolutely essential for the ends of justice. In this connection we may also refer to a Bench decision of this court in the case of Baul Chand Sen V/s. Surish Chandra Sen, reported in AIR 1914 Cal 170. " Reference in this connection may also be made to the case of Nath Singh Narapan singh V/s. The Union of India, reported in AIR 1967 Delhi 67. Further even, on merit, as the petitioner was promoted merely on a purely temporary basis and/or in ad hoc basis the period during which he was occupying the post of selection grade Assistant cannot be reckoned for. the purpose of seniority. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of repoted in S, Ramaswamy V/s. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1976 (SC 6 and in the case of Ashok Gulati and others V/s. B. S. Jain and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 424 . Further from the admitted facts it is evident the Respondent No.4 bad all along been drawing a higher salary than the petitioner and was thus evidently senior to him. In my opinion the findings of the Establishment Committee are cotrect. Further from the admitted facts it is evident the Respondent No.4 bad all along been drawing a higher salary than the petitioner and was thus evidently senior to him. In my opinion the findings of the Establishment Committee are cotrect. 31 In this view of the matter, the order as contained in Annexure-3 must be upheld. 32. However, in view of the orders as contained in Annexures-9 and 9/1 to the writ application, it must be held that the amount paid to the petitioner while he was wrongly been holding the post of Selection Grade Upper Division assistant could not be directed to be refunded particularly in view of the fact that the same rightly or wrongly still hold the field and had not been questioned in this petition. 33. So far as the order as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application is concerned, the same is apparently bad in law. Before pending the order of censor dated 31-7-1986 neither any notice was given to the petitioner nor he was heard in the matter. At the cost of the petition it may be reiterated that even thereafter, the orders as contained in Annexure-9 and 9/1 were passed. If, however, according to the respondent No.1 to 3 the language used by the petitioner in his representation and as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application did not behove a government servant it was and still is open to the authorities to initiate a departmental proceeding as against the petitioner and give him opportunity to explain this conduct, but before the same is done, evidently no punishment by way of censor could have been inflicted upon. 34. In this view of the matter, the order as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application must be quashed.351 In the result this writ application is allowed in part to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Application partly allowed.