J. M. Srivastava, J. — The petitioner, who had completed the course but could not obtain the Diploma in Electrical Engineering, was however, appointed Worked Charged Electrical Overseer under the Department of Electricity, Government of Assam, with effect from 21. 8 56. The petitioner was subsequently absorbed Assam employee under the Assam State Electricity Board, hereinafter, referred as the Board with effect from June, 1958 and was confirmed as Engineering Subordinate Grade-I with effect from 16. 8. 58. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by order dated 11 9. 69, and was declared Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical) with effect from 10. 2. 75. In view of some grievances or the employees an agreement was made between the Board, the representative of the Association of Engineers and Junior Engineers Association on 11. 7. 79 (Annexure 6). By order dated 19. 7. 79 a batch of 33 Assistant Engineers/ Sub-Divisional Officers had been declared as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) and some of them even junior to the petitioner were included in the said list. The Board subsequently by Memorandum No. ASEB (PLT) 58/80/60 dated 22nd March, 1982 (Annexure 9) relaxed the qualification and directed as under : "It has now been decided by the Board that the promotee Asstt. Engineers/S. D. Os. who are not in possession of the qualification as mentioned in the O. M. No. ASEB (PLT) 199/75/169 dated 11.7.79 shall also be treated at par with other Assistant Engineers and are eligible for selection by the Selection Committee for further promotions. This will have concurrent effect with the O. M. dated 11. 7.79 mentioned ibid." The petitioner was accordingly promoted by order dated 20th May, 1982 (Annexure 10) with effect from 24. 2. 82. On the same day however an Addendum Annexure 10 (2) was issued as under :- "Further to this office O. M. No. ASEB (PLT) /80/60 dated 27.3. 82, it is hereby clarified that promotee Asstt. Engr/S. D. Os who are not in possession of the qualification mentioned in the O. M. No. ASEB (PLT) 199/75/169 dated 13.7.79 shall be treated at par with other Asstt. Engineers with effect from 24. 2. 82 only." The petitioner is aggrieved that his order of promotion has been given effect from 24. 2. 82, whereas in View of the Board's decision as contained in Office Memorandum dated 22. 3. Engineers with effect from 24. 2. 82 only." The petitioner is aggrieved that his order of promotion has been given effect from 24. 2. 82, whereas in View of the Board's decision as contained in Office Memorandum dated 22. 3. 82 it should have concurrent effect with O. M. No. ASEB (PLT) 199/75/169 dated 11.7.79. i. e. his promotion should relate back toll. 7. 79. The petitioner's contention is that the Addendum [Annexure 10 (2)] was not authorised by the Board and as such it should not have the effect of modification of the Boards own resolution as contained in O. M. No. ASEB (PLT) 199/75/169 dated 11.7.79. We have heard Shri R. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N. N. Saikia, learned Counsel for the Board. On consideration of the O. M. dated 22. 3. 82 Annexure 9, it appears that the Board had decided to relax the qualification and to give it concurrent effect with the O. M. dated 11.7.79. This being the decision of the Board we think it was not competent on the part of any other authority of the Board to issue an Addendum which was not in conformity with the decision of the Board to give effect to the relaxation in qualification. In order to ascertain the matter we had directed the learned counsel for the respondent Board to enlighten us if the Addendum had been issued in pursuant to any direction of the Board. Shri N. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly submitted that no such decision has been furnished to him to be placed before the Court. We, therefore, conclude that the Addendum [Annexure 10 (2)] was not in pursuance of any decision of the Board and as such the petitioners contention should be accepted that his promotion by order dated 20. 3. 82 had to be as stipulated in Office Memorandum dated 22. 3. 82 (Annexure 9) which was to have concurrent effect with the O. M. dated 11.7.79. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. We make no order as to costs.