JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner has assailed promotion of her juniors superseding her claim. 2. Petitioner and opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 were appointed as Junior Stenographers in the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') constituted under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 23 of the Act empowers the Corporation to appoint employees for efficient performance of its functions' and determine by regulations their conditions of appointment and service and remuneration payable to them. With effect from 26-5-1975 the Orissa State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1975 (hereinafter referred to 'the regulations') made u/s 48 of the Act came into effect and from that date conditions of service and remuneration of the employees were governed under the regulations. Regulation 7 classifies the employees to three classes-A, Band C. -It au thorises the Board of Directors of the Corporation to fix from time to time the pay scale of employees which are to be as laid down in the Appendix to the regulations with the approval of the State Government. It reads as follows: 7. Classification of staff- (1) x x x (ii) The Board shall fix, from time to time the number of posts in all categories, and the pay scale of the officers of the supervisory and Ministerial staff and the subordinate staff shall be as laid down in the Appendix hereto with the approval of the State Government. Amongst others, Junior Stenographers in pay scale of Rs. 320-450/and Senior Stenographers in pay scale of Rs. 400-675/- belong to Class 'B' employees. 3. Petitioner was appointed in 1977 and was confirmed as Junior Stenographer on 22-11-1978. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 were appointed as Junior Stenographers in the year 1978. Opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were appointed as Junior Stenographers between 4- 5-1979 and 26-9-1979. Before they were confirmed, Board of Directors in the meeting held on 26-11-1979 decided to upgrade the posts of Senior Stenographers to the scale of Rs. 525-975/- and the posts of Junior Stenographers to the scale of Rs 400-675/-. Opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were appointed as Junior Stenographers between 4- 5-1979 and 26-9-1979. Before they were confirmed, Board of Directors in the meeting held on 26-11-1979 decided to upgrade the posts of Senior Stenographers to the scale of Rs. 525-975/- and the posts of Junior Stenographers to the scale of Rs 400-675/-. On that basis, administrative circular No. 43 was published on 6-12-1979 by the Managing Director where it was stated that promotions by way of upgradation would apply to the employees of the regular cadre only and was to come into force with effect from 1-1-1980. Gradation list as on 1-4-1981 indicates that all Junior Stenographers in the scale Rs. 320-4501- were allowed- to draw salary in the scale Rs. 400-675/-. On 13-2-1980 while confirming the resolution dated 26-11-1979 Board decided that the employees promoted by upgradation shall be on probation for a period of one year. Opposite party Nos. 9 and 10 were initially appointed on 1-12-1980 in the scale Rs. 400-675/-. 4. In letter dated 24-8-1981, Petitioner was advised to appear at a short hand test to be held on 6-9-1981 for considering her case of promotion to the next higher post. After the test on basis of the result, Petitioner and others were intimated that the test was for considering their promotion as confirmation and they, not having attained the standard, their period of probation was extended. In this process tests were being held and the opposite parties were confirmed but Petitioner was being intimated that period of her probation was being extended. Opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 being promoted, Petitioner has filed this writ application. During pendency of the writ application Petitioner has also been promoted. Thus, seniority is the only question to be decided in this writ application. 5. Promotion is a condition of service. Regulation 21 of the regulations provides for the same. It envisages that the cases of promotion of candidates were to be considered by a selection committee appointed by the Board. It shall recommend suitable candidates to whom it considers fit for promotion. Notwithstanding seniority in the grade in which a candidate was continuing at the time of his promotion the appointing authority on the advice of the selection committee make the promotion as it deems proper. 6. It shall recommend suitable candidates to whom it considers fit for promotion. Notwithstanding seniority in the grade in which a candidate was continuing at the time of his promotion the appointing authority on the advice of the selection committee make the promotion as it deems proper. 6. In the counter affidavit, by the Corporation it has been asserted that all the Junior Stenographers were promoted by upgradation. Many of the Junior Stenographers in the scale of Rs. 320-450/- who were not confirmed were also allowed to draw pay in the higher scale. When the Board treated them to have been promoted even if they were not confirmed probationary period cannot be a bar for promotion. However, the employees to be promoted are to pass through the scrutiny of the selection committee. Appointing authority is to promote on advice of the selection committee., There is no assertion in the counter affidavit that before issue of the administrative circular allowing all Junior Stenographers to draw their salary in the scale of Rs. 400-675/-, there was any scrutiny by any selection committee appointed by the Board. Besides, Appendix does not indicate that there are posts of Senior Stenographers in the scale of Rs. 400-675/-. There is no assertion that the Appendix was a mended to include new categories of posts. If there would have been amendment, posts of Senior Stenographers in scale of Rs. 525-975/-, Senior Stenographers in the scale of Rs. 400-650/-. Junior Stenographers in the same scale of Rs. 400-650/- and Junior Stenographers in the scale of Rs. 320-450/- would have been there in Class. B service. Intention of the Board as stated before us was not reflected in the Appendix and an anomalous position was created. Such intention cannot be attributed. On the facts as revealed in this case, the only reasonable inference which can be drawn is that the Junior Stenographers in the pay scale of Rs. 320-450/- were not promoted to a higher rank but being in the same rank were allowed to draw pay in the scale pay of Rs. 400-650/- refixed by the Board, under Regulation 7(ii). In case it would have been a promotion, appendix was required to be amended following the procedure in Section 48 of the Act. Since it was refixation of pay, approval of the State Government alone was necessary. 400-650/- refixed by the Board, under Regulation 7(ii). In case it would have been a promotion, appendix was required to be amended following the procedure in Section 48 of the Act. Since it was refixation of pay, approval of the State Government alone was necessary. Therefore, the Corporation is directed to obtain post facto approval of the State Government with regard to the refixation of pay in case the same has not yet been obtained. 7. Since Petitioner and other junior stenographers continued in the same cadre getting the scale of pay as refixed, Petitioner continued as a confirmed employee. This is not clear from the letter in Annexure-9 where she was advised to appear for promotion. There was no question of consideration for confirmation in that letter. Thus, corporation also treated the Petitioner to have already been confirmed. If such notices to other Junior Stenographers would have been produced, we could have compared both the notices to find out the similarity or difference. Unfortunately those notices were not thought proper by the Corporation to be brought to our notice. When an employee makes grievance against an employer which is either the State or a Statutory body, all facts should be placed before the adjudicating body. It may be that other employees were not confirmed and accordingly the same examination for Petitioner was a test for consideration of her promotion while it 'was for others for confirmation. 8. Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that test is not provided for in the regulations for considering a candidate for promotion. Mr. Dora relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Shamsher Jane. Bahadur and Ors. 1972 S.L.R. 441. In the said decision consideration was made with regard to validity of a Government instruction requiring department candidates to qualify themselves in Accounts. Noting and Drafting and the question as to what would be the fair standard of account test to expect of examinees was being considered separately. Since the rule made under Article 309 proviso did not contain such a standard for promotion, it was held that administrative instructions issued was alteration of conditions of service and is not permissible as the same added a new ground for eligibility. However, principle laid down in Sant Ram Sharma Vs. Since the rule made under Article 309 proviso did not contain such a standard for promotion, it was held that administrative instructions issued was alteration of conditions of service and is not permissible as the same added a new ground for eligibility. However, principle laid down in Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another that Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by administrative instructions and in cases where rules are silent on any particular point. Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed was accepted. There can be no doubt that same principle would be applicable to statutory bodies where conditions of service of employees are governed by statutory rules. 9. In the present case, Rule-21 of the Regulations provides that selection committee is to recommend suitable candidates for promotion of employees when it considers fit. It reads as follows: 21. Promotion- The Selection Committee appointed by the Board shall recommend suitable candidates for promotion of employees whom they consider fit. The Board of Detectors shall on the advice of the Selection Committee make such promotion in regard to others as it deems proper and notwithstanding his/her seniority in the grade. The Managing Director shall on the advice of the Selection Committee make such promotions in regard to employees of categories "B" and "C" as he deems proper and notwithstanding his/her seniority in the grade. No employees shall have a right to be appointed or promoted to any particular post or grade, provided that the Managing Director may at his discretion make temporary promotions for period not exceeding three months pending selection of outside candidates or approval or promotion by the Board of Directors. There is no guideline as to how the selection committee would consider a candidate to be suitable. In such circumstances if the selection committee holds a test to consider the ability of a candidate to discharge the duties in a higher post, it is not inconsistent with the provision in Regulation-21. It a mounts to filling up the gap in the rules with regard to determination of the suitability. In case it would have been a condition for the candidate not being considered by the selection committee the same would not have been sustained. It a mounts to filling up the gap in the rules with regard to determination of the suitability. In case it would have been a condition for the candidate not being considered by the selection committee the same would not have been sustained. Test by a selection committee to judge the standard of stenography cannot be said to be irrelevant or inconsistent with rules where the promotion was made to a post to discharge the duties of stenography in a higher scale. General principle in Sant Rama Sharma's case2 (supra) would be applicable to the present case and decision reported in State of Haryana's case1 (supra) is distinguishable on facts. Mr. Dora, relied upon the decision reported in State of Punjab v. Madan Singh and Ors. 1972 S.L.R. 446, in which the decision reported in State of Haryana's case1 (supra) was relied upon and it was held that in absence of any provision in the rule requirement to pass a departmental test and on that basis to revert a candidate was not acceptable. However, the question of correctness of the tests held there Petitioners and others were to be considered for promotion is academic since Petitioner had already been confirmed. 10. Mr. Dora, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Shri Janki Prasad Parimoo and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. 1973 S.L.R. 719,and submitted that entries in the confidential character rolls ought to have been considered for the purpose of considering the suitability of a candidate for promotion. There can be no dispute In that regard. Entries in a confidential Character roll of an employee who is considered for direct recruitment by another appointing authority is also taken into consideration before appointment since they reflect antecedents of a candidate. In case of promotion, such entries are relevant for considerations and the selecting body ought not to ignore the same unless cogent grounds are available to discard them. This is well reflected in the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Janki Prasad Parimoo's case4 (supra). There is no assertion that for the purpose of promotion, the character rolls were taken into consideration. Thus, promotion in the present case have been made without fallowing the Regulations. l1. Since Petitioner and opposite party Nos. 2 to. 10 have already been promoted, we are not intending to interfere with such promation. There is no assertion that for the purpose of promotion, the character rolls were taken into consideration. Thus, promotion in the present case have been made without fallowing the Regulations. l1. Since Petitioner and opposite party Nos. 2 to. 10 have already been promoted, we are not intending to interfere with such promation. Carparatian is, however, to examine the cases of Petitioner and opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 by appointing a Selection Committee to find out their suitability keeping in mind the observation made in this decision. The placement of the selection Committee in consideration at their suitability would be the basis for fixing their seniority as Senior Stenographers. This process should be completed by end at December, 1989. In case, Petitioner is found suitable an the day opposite party Nos. 2 to 10 are also found to be suitable for promotion position given by, the selection Committee unless altered by the Board for cogent reasons shall be her position and she would be treated to have been promoted' an the day the candidate below herein the suitability list was given the promotion. In case, the position of the Petitioner would be the last in the suitability list date of her promotion shall be accepted. 12. In the result, writ application is allowed to the extend indicated in this judgment. No costs. Requisites for issue of writ shall be tiled within seven days, failing which this writ application shall be treated to have been dismissed without further reference to. Bench. J.M. Mohapatra, J. I agree. Writ petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed