JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the appointment of respondent No.2 - Shri Rameshwar Pareek, as Deputy General Manager (Coordination and Monitoring) by the respondent - Raj. Financial Corporation (in short 'Corporation'). 2. In brief, the petitioners' case may be stated: The petitioner No.1 is Rajasthan Financial Corporation Officers' Association which is said to have been formed in the year 1985 and about 350 officers of the Corporation in the various cadres of Assistant Managers, Deputy Managers, Managers, Deputy General Managers and General Managers are its members. This Association is said to have been formed for the purpose of espousing the cause of the employees of the Corporation who are in officers cadres. The petitioner No.2, at the time of filing the writ petition, was posted as Manager in the Alwar Branch of the Corporation and was claiming to be eligible for promotion as Deputy General Manager. In the seniority list of Managers, circulated by the Corporation on May 2, 1980(Annex.-1), his name finds place at serial No.6. Persons senior to him, except Sh. P.C. Kasliwal, who was under suspension, were already promoted as Dy. General Manager, as such, he was claiming to be the first man entitled to be promoted to the post of Dy. General Manager. Respondent No.2 was a member of the Raj. Evaluation Service holding the post of Deputy Director and his services were taken on deputation by the Corporation as Manager (BMC) on January 24, 1985. Since then, he was on deputation even though he has completed his five years on deputation. On 8th March, 1990, the Corporation took a decision to absorb the services of respondent No.2. The Agenda item No.32 of the Board's meeting dated March 8, 1990 has been placed on the record as Annex.-3. The relevant portion of the agenda may be reporduced as under: "The pay scale of Dy. General Manager of this Corporation is Rs. 2975-4700. Sh. Pareek is presently drawing a basic salary of Rs. 2975/- p.m. and thus his absorption and fixation in the pay scale in question will not involve any material financial implications. Sh. Pareek has been serving in this organisation for more than 5 years now and has rich experience of varied aspects of the Corporation's functioning. 2975-4700. Sh. Pareek is presently drawing a basic salary of Rs. 2975/- p.m. and thus his absorption and fixation in the pay scale in question will not involve any material financial implications. Sh. Pareek has been serving in this organisation for more than 5 years now and has rich experience of varied aspects of the Corporation's functioning. In particular, apart from PR he has been involved in such diverse/as planning preparation of the Corporation's balance sheet and sealing with matters pertaining to the assembly and PUC and general liasion with the State Government and IDBI. Thus his absorption into the Corporation's services would be an asset to the Corporation. As regards precedents there has been a case in the recent past where an officer on deputation to this Corporation from the State Government was absorbed in the Corporation's services. The terms and conditions which were made applicable for that absorption have been applied in this case also and are as under:- 1 . Absorption in the Corporation's service shall be from the date next to the officer's being relieved from the Government service. 2. The Seniority of the officer shall be decided from the date of his joining on the post in question as per rules of the RFC. 3. The officer's pay will be fixed in the scale of Dy. General Manager of the Corporation as per the rules of the RFC. 4. Any balance of privilege leave and half pay leave earned by the officer during his service with Government upto the date preceding to the date of his absorption will be for fieted as far as this Corporation is concerned. 5. The officer shall be on absorption and thereafter be governed by the rules and regulations of the RFC. 6. The offer shall become a member of the RFC Employees Provident Fund. 7. The offer of absorption if made on the above terms shall be valid for a period of one month from the date on which the officer is given intimation of the same. The Dy. General Manager (C&M) as proposed shall continue to report to the CMC through the Executive Director as is the arrangement with Manager (BMC) at present. The Board is requested to consider the above proposal for upgradation of the post of Manager (BMC) to that of Dy. The Dy. General Manager (C&M) as proposed shall continue to report to the CMC through the Executive Director as is the arrangement with Manager (BMC) at present. The Board is requested to consider the above proposal for upgradation of the post of Manager (BMC) to that of Dy. General Manager (Coordination & Monitoring) and the absorption of Shri Rameshwar Pareek as a Dy. General Manager of the Corporation." In pursuance to the aforesaid agenda, the Board of Directors, in their meeting on 8th March, 1990 upgraded the post of Manager (Branch Monitoring Cell) to that of Deputy General Manager (Coordination and Monitoring) and appointed respondent No.2 against that post vide office-order dated March 8, 1990 (Annex.- 5).As the absorption of respondent No.2 in the service of the Corporation and his promotion as Dy. General Manager was very much on the cards, the writ petition was filed by the petitioners after making representations. 3. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on May 22, 1990 and an interim order was passed on the same day to the effect that respondent No.2 shall not be absorbed permanently. 4. It appears that on 8th March,1990, the Executive Director of the Corporation conveyed the decision of the Board to respondent No.2 to absorb him on the terms and conditions which have been narrated in the letter earlier vide Annex.R1/1. The respondent No.2 vide his communication dated 23.3.1990 accepted the said terms and conditions of the Board and consequently, an office-order was issued by the Corporation on March 24, 1990 (Annex.R-1/3) which reads as under:- "OFFICE-ORDER On his seeking voluntary retirement from the State Government, Shri Rameshwar Pareek, Manager (Branch Monitoring Cell) is absorbed and appointed Deputy General Manager of the Corporation w.e.f. date in the pay scale of Rs. 2975-75-3050-100-3650-125-4400-150-4700. His absorption has been effected as per conditions conveyed to him vide letter No.PA-12(D-28) 3427 dated 8th March, 1990." 5. The respondents have filed separate returns. They pleaded inter alia that the petitioner Association has no legal sanctity of filing the writ petition as it is not a registered body and petitioner No.2 though eligible for promotion to the post of Dy. General Manager, under the Regulations of 1958, was under suspension. It was further pleaded that the appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Dy. General Manager, under the Regulations of 1958, was under suspension. It was further pleaded that the appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Dy. General Manager (Coordination & Monitoring) did not affect the rights of the members of the Association for promotion to the post of Dy. General Manager, as per the Promotion Policy of the Corporation (Annex.-2). According to them, the post of Dy. General Manger is filled-up 100% by promotion from Manager(All groups) having five years experience and such promotions are made to the post of Dy. General Manager from Finance, Technical, Law and Personnel and Administration Sections. However, it was pleaded that the appointment of respondent No.2 was not by way of absorption, but was a fresh appointment against the newly created post of Dy. General Manager (Coordination and Monitoring).It was also pleaded that the post of Dy. General Manager (Coordination and Monitoring) is not a cadred post under the Regulations of 1958. To justify the appointment of respondent No.2, it was stated that for effective coordination and smooth functioning, the post of Dy. General Manager (Coordination & Monitoring) was created and looking to the past experience and performance of respondent No.2, his case was considered by the Corporation in its meeting held on March 8,1990. The Corporation then gave an offer of appointment with the terms and conditions and the same were accepted by the respondent No.2 and consequently, he was appointed vide office-order dated 24.3.1990 (Annex.R-1 /3) which has already been reproduced earlier. In short, the plea taken by the respondents is that the appointment is a fresh one and not by way of absorption and the post of Dy. General Manager (Coordination & Monitoring) is an Ex-cadre post not to be governed by the Regulations of 1958. 6. The petitioners filed a rejoinder to the reply of the respondents. In the rejoinder, it was denied that the Association has no locus standi to file the writ petition. It was then stated that the post of Dy. General Manager is to be filled in 100% by promotion from Managers (All groups) with five years experience, but the absorption /appointment of the respondent No.2 in the services of the Corporation was made in violation to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as such, the petitioners have special interest in the subject matter as they are aggrieved from such illegal appointment. It was denied that the appointment of respondent No.2 was not by way of absorption and the plea taken by the respondents was contrary to the documents Annex. R-1/1, R-1/2 and R-1/3, in which it has been clearly stated that his services were absorbed. It was also given out that the appointment of respondent No.2 was a clear case of favouring to a particular individual, thereby taking away the genuine and justified claims of the other eligible and competent officers. It was also denied that the post of Deputy General Manager (Coordination and Monitoring) was an Ex-cadre post. It was pleaded that there is no provision in the Statutory Staff Regulations 1958 or in the Promotion Policy (Annex.2) to fill up the post of Dy. General Managers by absorption or direct appointment and that in order to absorb the respondent No.2, the post of Manager (BMC) was upgraded to the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) on 8th March, 1990 and that the post of Manager (BMC) was again revived on 31.3.1990. Thus, the up gradation of the said post was done to accommodate and show favour to respondent No.2 and it is a clear case of discrimination in the matter of public employment. Certain documents have also been filed to substantiate this plea which are Annex.9 to 14. It was further given out that on the one hand respondent No.2 has availed all the voluntary retirement benefits from the State Government and he has been absorbed with monetary benefit of Rs. 1200/- per month. On 8th March, 1990 the grades of the cadre of Dy. General Managers were revised from Rs. 2975-4700 to Rs. 3700-500 and it was wrongly mentioned in the agenda that the absorption of Mr. Pareek would not involve any financial implications. It was also stated that for the functional and overall development of the Corporation, the Corporation was having General Manager(Planning), General Manager (Secretary-cum-Accounts), Dy. General Manager (Finance) and PR (Personnel) etc. etc. The primary function of coordination and monitoring section is statistical in character and there are two Dy. Managers and three Asstt. Managers working in this section, who have qualifications of general nature. The particulars of those officers and their qualifications have been given in para 3 of the rejoinder.The petitioners then have given a chart of the Managers showing their qualifications and experience as managers who are eligible for promotion. Managers and three Asstt. Managers working in this section, who have qualifications of general nature. The particulars of those officers and their qualifications have been given in para 3 of the rejoinder.The petitioners then have given a chart of the Managers showing their qualifications and experience as managers who are eligible for promotion. The said chart is reproduced as under: S.No. Name of the Manager eligible for Promotion to D.G.M. Year-wise promotion/seniority Qualification 1 2 3 4 1. Sh.S.S.Mehta 1982-83 MBA 2. Sh.B.L.Bheda 1982-83 M.Com. 3. Sh.M.M.Mathur 1982-83 B.Com. 4. Sh.M.B.L.Mathur 1982-83 BA, LLB. 5. Sh.S.K.Malhotra 1982-83 B.Com. 6. Sh.J.J.R.Dubey 1983-84 MA, Dip. in Civil Engg. 7. Sh.S.Bhagat 1983-84 M.Com. 8. Sh.A.Talib 1983-84 MA (Ecom), M.Sc. (Part) PGDBMM, AM, Ex.A (England DMM 9. Sh.K.K.Parashar 1983-84 B.E.(Mech.), PGDBM 10. Sh.L.N.Verma 1983-84 M.Com. 11. Sh.R.K.Tayal 1984-85 BE, PGDBM 12. Sh.G.R.Goyal 1984-85 C.A. 13. Sh.R.K.Agrawal 1984-85 C.A. 14. Sh.K.B.Sindhawa 1984-85 B.Com.LLB 15. Sh.H.M.Doshi 1984-85 BE(Chem) 16. Sh.K.M.Bhandari 1984-85 A.M.I.E. 17. Sh.R.Gupta 1984-85 BE(Civil) PGDBM, AMIE (India) 18. Sh.O.M.Chohla 1984-85 M.Com. 19. Sh.R.Bhargava 1984-85 C.A., C.S. 20. Sh.Ashok Haldia 1985-86 C.A., C.S., I.C.W.A. On the other hand, the qualification of the respondent No.2 is simply M.A.(Economics) having no specialised/professional qualification like C.A., I.C.W.A., C.S., M.B.A., B.E./M.E. etc.etc. 7. On 2.5.1991, the petitioner No.2 moved an application that he did not want to press the petition so far it relates to him. This application was replied by the petitioner No.1 giving out the reasons under the pressure of which the petitioner No.2 had moved the application. It was stated that at the time when the writ petition was filed, no disciplinary action was under contemplation against petitioner No.2 and when he associated with the petitioner No.1 filing the writ petition, it was seriously taken by the Corporation and in order to harass, victimise and antogonise him, disciplinary action was initiated and he was placed under suspension after one month of the filing of the writ petition. Even thereafter, when Mr.Mehta did not oblige the Management by withdrawing the writ petition, he was charge-sheeted vide Memorandum No.RFC/PA-13(83)/2171 dated 16/12-10- 1990. It was also stated that even after the withdrawal of petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.1 is competent to continue the writ petition to safeguard the interest of various officers who are its members. No order was passed by this court on this application as yet. 8. It was also stated that even after the withdrawal of petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.1 is competent to continue the writ petition to safeguard the interest of various officers who are its members. No order was passed by this court on this application as yet. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Rajasthan Financial Corporation is a 'State' within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution. Hence, in the matter of employment or appointment of respondent No.2 protection of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution are available to the petitioners as the said appointment is not only arbitrary and discretionary, but also contrary to the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (in short 'the Act') and the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1958 (in short 'Regulations,1958'). The learned counsel argued that the appointment of respondent No. 2 on the post of Dy. General Manager (Coordination and Monitoring) is by way of absorption which is not permissible under the law. It was also contended that even if it is taken to be a case of direct appointment, Article-16(1) was directly hit by the action of the respondent, inasmuch as no critaria has been laid down for the selection, no procedure has been prescribed to consider other eligible candidates and there was not even invitation to the eligible persons to apply for the post. The learned counsel linked article 14 of the Constitution and urged that if an unbridled power of appointment is presumed to be with the Corporation, it will enable the distribution of larges or conferment of bounties in the matter of appointment to the persons of their like. The learned counsel also argued that the manner in which the appointment of respondent No.2 has been made clearly demonstrate a case of favour.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have made two-fold submissions, namely, that the petitioners, especially the Association has no locus standi to file the writ petition and that the appointment of respondent No.2 is a fresh appointment on an Ex-cadre post for securing efficiency and smooth working in the economic activities of the Corporation. It was also argued that the appointment of respondent No.2 has been made in the light of the report submitted by Sh.Chetan Buxi and the post of Dy. It was also argued that the appointment of respondent No.2 has been made in the light of the report submitted by Sh.Chetan Buxi and the post of Dy. General Manager (Coordination & Monitoring) is of a specialised nature and has to be managed by a person having adequate experience of monitoring and coordination. The learned counsel denied that the appointment of respondent No.2 was made in order to provide him any favour. 9. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, the following points can be formulated for consideration: (i) Whether the petition deserves to be dismissed on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the petitioners, especially the Association has no locus standi to file the writ petition; (ii) Whether the appointment of respondent No.2 is by way of absorption and was validly made; and (iii) In the alternative, if it is a fresh appointment, then whether it was validly made. 10. In order to appreciate the questions involved in the present writ petition, some relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations, 1958 need consideration.The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was enacted by the Parliament for the establishment of State Financial Corporations. The Rajasthan Financial Corporation (respondent No.1) has been established as a statutory body under section-3 of the Act by the State Government. It is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property and may sue and be sued. The Board of Directors is constituted as provided under section 10 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act relates to the appointment of the officers and other employees of the Financial Corporation: It reads as under: "Section 23-Officers and other employees of the Financial Corporation. The Board of Directors is constituted as provided under section 10 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act relates to the appointment of the officers and other employees of the Financial Corporation: It reads as under: "Section 23-Officers and other employees of the Financial Corporation. The Financial Corporation may appoint such officers, advisors and employees as it considers necessay for the efficient performance of its functions, and determine, by regulations, their conditions of appointment and service and the remuneration payable to them: Provided that the State Government may, in consultation with and after obtaining the advice of the (Development Bank), specify the lass or categories of posts in respect of which appointments may be made by the Board on such remuneration and other conditions of service as the Board may determine, and no regulation made under this Act shall apply to such posts in respect of matters so determined by the Board." A bare perusal of this Section shows that the conditions of appointment and service and the remuneration payable to the officers and other employees of the Corporation has to be determined by regulations. Then, section- 48 of the Act gives power to the Corporation to make regulations with the previous sanction of the State Government.In exercise of the power conferred by Section-48 of the Act, Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1958 (in short 'Regulations, 1958') have been made. These regulations defined the terms and conditions of appointment and service of all the employees of the Corporation, whether whole time or employed temporarily and also provides their duties, conduct and the remuneration.Chapter-II deals with appointments, probation and termination of service. As per regulation 8(A) - PRO, Managers and above are appointed by the Managing Director with the approval of the Board.Chapter-III deals with the record of service, seniority and promotion.Then, Chapter-IV deals with the conduct, discipline and appeal of the employees. Regulation-37-A provides the power of suspension with regard to various employees. In 'A' class employees have been included Dy.G.M., Secretary, Manager, PRO, Dy.Manager and Asstt. Manager.Chapter-V deals with the pay, allowances and other concessions, while Chapter-VI deals with the leave and authorities empowered to grant leave. Chapter-VII provides for compensatory allowance and Chapter-VIII deals with the medical attendance to be provided to the employees of the Corporation.A perusal of the regulations shows that Dy. Manager.Chapter-V deals with the pay, allowances and other concessions, while Chapter-VI deals with the leave and authorities empowered to grant leave. Chapter-VII provides for compensatory allowance and Chapter-VIII deals with the medical attendance to be provided to the employees of the Corporation.A perusal of the regulations shows that Dy. General Manager is a Class-I officer and his appointing authority is Managing Director with the approval of the Board. Therefore, it leaves no doubt that the appointments and services of all the Dy. General Managers are governed by the Staff Regulations, 1958. This position has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents also with the only exception to respondent No.2, which, according to them, is holding an ex-cadre post. 11. Before adverting to the points formulated for decision, I would like to say few words about the character of the employees of the Corporation and the applicability of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the matter of their appointment etc.In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 , Bhagwati, J. after making an exhaustive survey of the decisions of the Apex Court of the country and of American courts, summarised some of the factors which are considered to determine whether a corporation is an agency or instrumentality of government. In the instant case, all the material factors exist which show beyond doubt that the Rajasthan Financial Corporation constituted under the Act is an agency or instrumentality of the government, and the relationship between the Corporation and its employees is not purely that of master and servant, founded only on contract. Indeed, it was not seriously disputed before me that the respondent No.2 is in public employment and the Corporation is an 'authority' within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution. Hence, the petitioners would be entitled to invoke the protection of Article-14 and 16 of the Constitution in case there can be any discrimination or arbitrariness.In E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1974 SC 555 ) it has been observed as under: "Article-16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for allcitizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment which is so vital to the building up of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the Constitution, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words, Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a species. Article 16 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle ? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose, J., "a way of life", and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed, cabined and confined "within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore, violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Where the operative reason for State action as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice; in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16." This view was further elaborated and affirmed by the Apex Court of the country in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ) .In U.P. Warehousing Corp. v. V.N. Vajpayee (1980)3 SCC 459 , O.Chinnappa Reddy, J. in a concurring judgment observed as under: "I find it very hard indeed to discover any distinction on principle between a person directly under the employment of the Government and a person under the employment of an agency or instrumentality of the Government or a corporation, set up under a statute or incorporated but wholly owned by the government. It is self-evident and trite to say that the function of the State has long since ceased to be confined to the preservation of the public peace, the exaction of taxes and the defence of its frontiers.It is now the function of the State to secure 'social, economic and political Justice', 'to preserve liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship' and to ensure 'equality of status and of opportunity'. That is the proclamation of the people in the premable to the Constitution. The desire to attain these objectives has necessarily resulted in intense governmental activity in manifold ways. Legislative and executive activity have reached very far and have touched very many aspects of a citizen's life. The Government, directly or through the corporations, set up by it or owned by it, now owns or manages a large number of industries and institutions. It is the biggest builder in the country. Mammoth and minor irrigation projects, heavy and light engineering projects, projects of various kinds are undertaken by the government. The Government is also the biggest trader in the country. It is the biggest builder in the country. Mammoth and minor irrigation projects, heavy and light engineering projects, projects of various kinds are undertaken by the government. The Government is also the biggest trader in the country. The State and the maltitudinous agencies and corporations set up by it are the principle purchasers of the produce and the products of our country and they control a vast and complex machinery of distribution. The government, its agencies and instrumentalities, corporations set up by the Government under statutes and corporations incorporated under the Companies Act but owned by the Government have thus become the biggest employers in the country. There is no good reason why, if Government is bound to observe the equality clauses of the Constitution in the matter of employment and in its dealings with the employees, the corporations set up or owned by the Government should not be equally bound and why, instead, such corporations could become citadels of patronage and arbitrary action. In a country like ours which teems with population, where the State, its agencies, its instrumentalities and its corporations are the biggest employers and where millions seek employment and security, to confine the applicability of the equality clauses of the Constitution, in relation to matters of employment, strictly to direct employment under the Government is perhaps to mock at the Constitution and the people. Some element of public employment is all that is necessary to take the employee beyond the reach of the rule which denies him access to a court to enforce a contract of employment and denies him the protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. After all employment in the public sector has grown to vast dimensions and employees in the public sector often discharge as onerous duties as civil servants and participate in activities vital to our country's economy. In growing realisation of the importance of employment in the public sector, Parliament and the Legislatures of the States have declared persons in the service of local authorities, Government companies and statutory corporations as public servants and, extended to them by express enactment the protection usually extended to civil servants from suits and prosecution. In growing realisation of the importance of employment in the public sector, Parliament and the Legislatures of the States have declared persons in the service of local authorities, Government companies and statutory corporations as public servants and, extended to them by express enactment the protection usually extended to civil servants from suits and prosecution. It is, therefore, but right that the independence and integrity of those employed in the public sector should be secured as much as the independence and integrity of civil servants." The above view has been again reaffirmed in A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation (1984)3 SCC 316 , where it has been held: "Article-14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action, whether it be of the Legislature or of the executive of an 'authority' under Article-12, because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve the negation of equality and if it affects any matter relating to public employment it is also violative of Article 16. One need not confine the denial of equality to a comparative evaluation between two persons to arrive at a conclusion of discriminatory treatment. An action per se arbitrary itself denies equal protection by law." 12. In the background of the above decisions and the law laid down, I may now proceed to examine the grounds and points formulated by me. First of all I shall deal with the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition.The writ petition has been filed by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Officers' Association through its President and Sh. S.S. Mehta, who was working as Branch Manager in the Corporation. Though Mr. Mehta has moved an application to withdraw him from the petition, but the circumstances disclosed by the petitioner No.1 show that the management of the Corporation was not happy by the action of Mr. Mehta joining in the petition and has put him under suspension and initiated a departmental enquiry. The possibility cannot be ruled out that it was done in order to pressurise Mr. Mehta to withdraw him from the writ petition. Be that as it may, even after withdrawal of Mr. Mehta, the question remains whether the Association can maintain the writ petition or not?The existence of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Officers' Association is not disputed. As per averments made in the writ petition, there are 350 officers of various cadres, namely, Asstt. Mehta to withdraw him from the writ petition. Be that as it may, even after withdrawal of Mr. Mehta, the question remains whether the Association can maintain the writ petition or not?The existence of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Officers' Association is not disputed. As per averments made in the writ petition, there are 350 officers of various cadres, namely, Asstt. Managers, Deputy Managers, Managers, Deputy General Managers and General Manager are its members, who are employed in the head office and other offices and branches of the Corporation throughout the State. This Association was formed in the year 1985 to espouse the cause of the persons employed in the officers cadres in the services of the Corporation. These facts have not been denied in the return by the respondents.The contention of the petitioner No.1 is that the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) can be filled in by promotion as per the last Promotion Policy which has been placed on the record as Annex.2. As per this Promotion Policy, the post of Dy. General Manager has to be filled in 100% by promotion from Managers (All groups) having five years experience on that post. It is also not in dispute that there is a common seniority list of the Managers of all groups and out of that common seniority list, promotion to the post of Dy. General Managers are made. Thus, according to the Association, the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) can be filled-up only by promotion amongst the officers of the Corporation. In the rejoinder, the Association has also given a chart showing the respective qualifications and experience of the officers of the Corporation to show that they are better qualified than respondent No.2 for the appointment to the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M). Thus, the present matter regarding the appointment of respondent No.2 to the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) is not only between the Corporation and the respondent-appointee. The aggrieved are also those who have similar or even better qualifications than the appointee-respondent No.2, who have been denied the opportunity for the actual appointment and of being considered fairly.The matter relates to the policy decision and if the Corporation claims its absolute right to appoint Dy. General Manager (C&M) is not only between the Corporation and the respondent-appointee. The aggrieved are also those who have similar or even better qualifications than the appointee-respondent No.2, who have been denied the opportunity for the actual appointment and of being considered fairly.The matter relates to the policy decision and if the Corporation claims its absolute right to appoint Dy. General Manager (C&M) in violation to the Promotion Policy or Regulations, 1958 without considering the claim of other officers, it seriously prejudices the fundamental right of other officers of the Corporation, who are members of the Association.Law on locus standi has marched much ahead. Many milestones have been covered. The restricted meaning of aggrieved person and narrow outlook of specific injury has yielded in favour of broad and wide construction in wake of public interest litigation. Even in private challenge to executive or administrative action having extensive fall out the dividing line between personal injury or loss and injury of a public nature is fast vanishing. Law has veered round from genuine grievance against order affecting prejudicially to sufficient interest in the matter.It cannot be said that the officers of the Corporation are not seriously affected by the action of the Corporation in appointing respondent No.2 on the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M). It may also be pointed out here that the petitioner-Association had filed a writ petition before this Court earlier also to espouse the claim of its members when exgratia payment @ 20% of emoluments were stopped by the Corporation. The said writ petition was registered as D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.669/1988 (R.F.C. Officers Association v. R.F.C. & anr.) and the same was decided in favour of the Association vide judgment dated 5th Sept.1988 (reported in) . The judgment of this Court, as reported to me, was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is over-ruled. 13. After rejecting the preliminary objection, the first and the foremost question for determination is as to whether the appointment of respondent No.2 is by way of absorption or it is a fresh appointment and whether it was validly made by the Corporation.The respondent No-2 Mr.Pareek was on deputation with the Corporation from the Rajasthan Evaluation Services, Government of Rajasthan since 1985. From Annex.3 it appears that he requested to the Corporation that his services be considered for absorption as Dy. General Manager in the Corporation. From Annex.3 it appears that he requested to the Corporation that his services be considered for absorption as Dy. General Manager in the Corporation. On his request, his case was considered for absorption and Board of Directors in their meeting on 8th March, 1990 accepted the request of respondent No.2 for absorption and respondent No.2 was intimated in this connection by the Executive Director vide letter dated 8th March 1990 (Annex.R-1 /1). A bare perusal of that letter leaves no doubt that the Board of Directors considered the request of respondent No.2 for permanent absorption in the Corporation as Dy. General Manager. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under: "Your request for absorption as Dy. General Manager of the Corporation was considered by the Board of Directors of the Corporation in their meeting held on 8th March, 1990. The Board has agreed to accept your absorption on the following terms and conditions: (1) You will be absorbed in the Corporation's service from the date next to your being relieved from Government service. (2) Your seniority will be decided from the date of your joining on the post in question as per rules of the RFC. (3) Your pay will be fixed in the scale of Dy. General Manager of the Corporation as per rules of the RFC. (4) Any balance of privilege leave and halt pay leave earned by you during your service with the State Government upto the date preceding the date of your absorption will be forfeited as far as this Corporation is concerned. (5) On absorption you shall be governed by the rules and regulations of the RFC. (6) You will become a member of the RFC Employees Provident Fund." The respondent No.2 accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid letter vide his communication dated March 23, 1990. The appointment order of respondent No-2 (Annex.R-1 /3) has already been reproduced earlier.Thus, from the agenda of the meeting (Annex.3), letter dated 8th March, 1990 by the Executive Director to respondent No.2 (Annex.R-1/1), the consent of respondent No.2(Annex.R-1 /2) and the appointment order dated March 24, 1990 (Annex.R-1/3), it is clear that the appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) was by way of absorption.As the respondent No.2 was on deputation and no rule or regulation permits any such absorption, the stand has been shifted by the respondents as it was impossible for them to defend the said appointment which has been made by absorption. 14. The case of respondents is that the appointment of respondent No.2 was a fresh appointment and the Corporation had a right to do so. The contention in this connection is that the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) is an ex-cadre post.Section-23 of the Act provides that the conditions of appointment and service and the remuneration payable to the officers, advisors and employees of the Corporation has to be determined by regulations. The proviso to this Section is not applicable in the present case. Section 48 of the Act empowers the Board to make regulations with the previous sanction of the State Government. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 48 of the Act, Staff Regulations, 1958 have been made with the previous sanction of the State Government and it applies to every whole time employee of the Corporation, as well as, the staff employed temporarily or advisors, officers or other staff recruited on special contracts unless such contracts contain any different provisions.The appointment of respondent No.2 as Dy. General Manager is of permanent nature. This position has not been disputed and cannot be disputed by the respondents in view of Annex. 3, Annex. R-1/1, Annex. R-1/2 and Annex. R-1/3 as described above. It can also not be disputed that Staff Regulations, 1958 will equally apply to the services of respondent No.2 as Dy. General Manager (C&M).The Corporation has declared Promotion Policy from time to time and the last Promotion Policy was published /circulated on Sept.19, 1986 (Annex.-2). As per this Promotion Policy, the post of Dy. General Manager has to be filled in 100% by promotion from Managers (all groups) having five years experience. There is no other mode of appointment prescribed by regulations or the Promotion Policy for the post of Dy. General Manager. Therefore, in the absence of any fresh regulation in this connection, the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) is also to be filled in by promotion. No other source of recruitment/appointment has been brought to my notice. There is no other mode of appointment prescribed by regulations or the Promotion Policy for the post of Dy. General Manager. Therefore, in the absence of any fresh regulation in this connection, the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) is also to be filled in by promotion. No other source of recruitment/appointment has been brought to my notice. It is true that the Corporation is free to make regulations for the appointment of its officers, including for the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) and a source of direct recruitment can be introduced. In view of Section 23 of the Act appointments of officers, advisors and employees of the Corporation have to be made by regulations. In other words, recruitments have to be made by the Corporation laying down the conditions of appointment and service and the remuneration payable to its officers, advisors and employees. Section-23 of the Act is explicit and clear and calls for no two interpretations except that appointment of officers, advisors and employees of the corporation can be made only by regulations. Therefore, if the Corporation thinks that for the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) persons of a special qualifications and experience are required and the same cannot be available by promotion of the officers already serving in the Corporation, it is competent and free to make regulations providing such appointment to be made by direct recruitment or any other source. In case of direct recruitment also, opportunity will have to be given to all eligible candidates otherwise such appointment shall be violative of Article 16(l) of the Constitution. The Corporation cannot have an absolute right to pick and choose and appoint any person without giving opportunity to all eligible persons. In R.D. Shetty's case (supra) it has been held as under: "The discretion of the Government has been held to be not unlimited in that the Government cannot give or withhold largesse in its arbitrary discretion or at its sweet will. It is insisted, as pointed out by Prof. Reich in an especially stimulating Article on The New Property' in 73 Yale Law Journal 733, "that Government action be based on standards that are not arbitrary or unauthorised". It is insisted, as pointed out by Prof. Reich in an especially stimulating Article on The New Property' in 73 Yale Law Journal 733, "that Government action be based on standards that are not arbitrary or unauthorised". The Government cannot be permitted to say that it will give jobs or enter into contracts or issued quotas or licences only in favour of those having grey hair or belonging to a particular political party or professing a particular religious faith. The Government is still the Government when it acts in the matter of granting largesse and it cannot act arbitrarily. It does not stand in the same position as a private individual." It has been further observed as under:- "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 largesse, 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 norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power of discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesse 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." Lastly, it has been observed as under: "Now, obviously where a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it would, in the exercise of its power or discretion, be subject to the same constitutional or public law limitations as Government. The rule inhibiting arbitrary action by Government which we have discussed above must apply equally where such corporation is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or otherwise, and it cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationship with any person it likes at its sweet will, but its action must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance." The argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) is an ex-cadre post can be rejected at the very out-set. It is true that the ex-cadre post is outside the scope of the cadre post and regular rules of recruitment and conditions of appointment do not govern such post. The concept of an ex-cadre post is a stray post created in a department or service outside the regular line of promotion for a purely temporary period to meet a special need. In the garb of an ex-cadre post a permanent appointment cannot be given to any person. The post, of Dy. General Manager (C&M) is not a temporary one to meet the temporary need of a special nature. The terms and conditions of the appointment and services as detailed out in Annex.R-1/1 and Annex.R-1 /3 leave no doubt that the appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) is not for a temporary period to meet a special requirement for the time being. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has no substance that the post of Dy. General Manager (C&M) is an ex-cadre post, as such, it is immune from Article-14 and 16 of the Constitution. 15. Judged from any angle, the appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Dy. General Manager (Coordination and Monitoring) cannot be sustained and it is hereby set-aside. I need not examine the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the Corporation in appointing respondent No.2 is mala fide.Consequently this petition is allowed with costs as indicated above.Petition allowed. *******