M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel. ( 2 ) THE petitioners, who are the K. E. B. Engineers Association have filed this petition whereby they have assailed certain modifications that have been brought about by the Board with regard to the percentages relating to the recruitments and promotions of one category of persons, namely, Assistant engineers. Briefly stated, their challenge is to the effect that the scheme of the act prescribes that the proposals of this type which ultimately affect the rights and the careers of the employees can only be amended by approval of the Board of Directors. According to the petitioners, the proper approvals have not been obtained before the steps have been taken. They, therefore, contend that the amendment is irregular and is liable to be struck down. ( 3 ) THE maintainability of this petition has been seriously challenged by Mr. Subba Rao who represents the Board. He submits that the representative body which has approached this court consists of a class of engineers who have already been recruited/promoted and that consequently, that none of their rights are in any way affected, modified or infringed upon by the change in question. Mr. Rao, therefore, submits that the present petitioners have no locus standi whatsoever to present this challenge in so far as if they cannot demonstrate as to how the action affects them, they ought not to be permitted to approach this Court by way of a writ petition. With regard to this aspect of the matter, the petitioner's learned counsel has submitted that this is a variation in the rules and the service conditions which will ultimately affect the entire body of persons to which the petitioners belong. It may be that the petitioners have already reached that particular cadre, but it is their contention that the association is equally concerned with the right methodlolgy being adopted in relation to recruitment and promotion relating to that body of engineers. The law with respect this aspect of the matter is well crystallized. It may be that the petitioners have already reached that particular cadre, but it is their contention that the association is equally concerned with the right methodlolgy being adopted in relation to recruitment and promotion relating to that body of engineers. The law with respect this aspect of the matter is well crystallized. It was held long back in the Asaid workers' case while examining the doctrine of locus standi, that for invocation of the writ jurisdiction, it was not necessary that personal injury or damage must be demonstrated and, in expansion of the concept of public interest litigation, the facet of what may be termed as to some extent personal interest litigation was permitted. This position was thereafter amplified in the Judges' case wherein again, an Advocate was permitted to move the Supreme Court in relation to a matter that exclusively concerned Judges and had nothing to do with either the petitioner or the body of lawyers directly. It was in relation to the correctness and the methodology that was adopted, that the court permitted a challenge. I do concede that if the nexus between the challenge and the act that is complained of is extremely remote or if the challenge is frivolous or motivated by mischief or mala fides that the Court will not certainly permit it. I am however, unable to accept the submission on behalf of the board that the body of engineers cannot be concerned with the rules in relation to the recruitment to that very body of officers. Under these circumstances, it will have to be held that the petitioners do have the locus standi to present this petition. ( 4 ) AS regards the question of approval, which is the real and only issue of challenge in this petition, it is true that the Board has defended its action on the basis of the 1991 resolution. Admittedly, the Internal Management Committee which is the high power body entrusted with the function of examining the finer and final aspects of the matter relating to amendment of rules, etc. , met in the year 1992 and came to the conclusion that certain amendments were desirable. The fault committed at that time was to rely on certain old approvals that had been granted by the Board in the year 1991. , met in the year 1992 and came to the conclusion that certain amendments were desirable. The fault committed at that time was to rely on certain old approvals that had been granted by the Board in the year 1991. The I. M. C. , therefore, recorded the conclusion that it is unnecessary to obtain fresh approval. By following this procedure, the Internal Management Committee attempted to bring its decision within the umbrella of approval that had been granted in the year 1991 when the 1992 decision had not yet been taken. This, to my mind, is totally a faulty procedure and cannot be permitted because it could have dangerous and far reaching consequences in so far as, approvals once granted could easily be misused by subordinate authorities and in any event the law does not sanction such a procedure. ( 5 ) THE correct procedure that the law prescribes is that the recommendation or proposal after it assumes final shape must be placed before the Board and the Board is expected to examine all aspects of the implications of that proposal including the aspect of what will be the effect of such amendments both vis-a-vis the interests of the Board and the rights and interests of the employees. It is this sort of consideration that is expected from the Board and such consideration can only be done after a careful assessment of the final proposal as has been put up to it. ( 6 ) IN the present case, the action of the Board is further defended by Mr. Rao on the basis of a Board resolution dated 13-5-1992 whereby the Board has ratified the action of the i. M. C. in April 1992. This post facto sanction cannot to my mind cure the aforesaid defect. This procedure again has no legal sanction, because it is presumed that where the power is vested in the Board, that the Board alone can exercise that power. If the present procedure is permitted, it would mean that the power delegated to the I. M. C. in the first instance which body takes whatever decisions that it likes and that the Board, thereafter, rubber stamps the same. By following such a procedure, the Board would be abdicating its duties, functions and obligations. It is for this reason that the subsequent ratification by the Board cannot be upheld. By following such a procedure, the Board would be abdicating its duties, functions and obligations. It is for this reason that the subsequent ratification by the Board cannot be upheld. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the fact that the grant of an interim order would cause considerable dislocation both to the working of the corporation and the interests of its employees, I am of the view that since the issues have been decided, that the petition is liable to be disposed of. ( 8 ) THE petition is accordingly allowed in so far as notification dated 16-4-1992, stands quashed to the extent that it relates to the category of Assistant Engineers (Category 10 ). I need to however, point out that in the event of any promotions or recruitments having been made by virtue of this notification so far, that those shall stand unaffected in the interests of the concerned employees. No prospective application shall, however be given to the notification which has now been quashed. This, however, will not preclude the Board from reconsidering the matter or taking an appropriate decision. Rule is made absolute to this extent. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .