Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This application is admitted. As the respondents have already appeared and filed counter affidavits and rajoinders have also been filed, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard and is being disposed of. 2. The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for quasing. of the order of the State Government contained in letter No 1540 dated 3rd october, 1992 issued by the Dy. Secretary to the Government in the departments of Forest and Envitoment, contained in Annexure 1 whereby and whereunder while refomring to the notification No. (See dated 16-9-92 of the bihar State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board")promoting the petitioner along with one Scasni Bhushan Kumar to the post of Scientist and consequently posting them in the Central Laboratory, Patna, besides notification No 57 dated 14th August.1992 the effect of decision of the Board in its meeting dated 25th September, 1992 in that regard have been suspended and further, the Chairman of the Board has been directed to submit report in that concection before taking any further action. 3. In short the case of the petitioner is that there were 8 posts of scientist in the Board, which is the next higher post of the senior Scientific assistant in the ladar of promotion and the petitioner having all the requisite qualifications for his promotion to the aforesaid post of scientist and being a member of the scheduled caste for whom one of the said post was reserved, made sevaral representations for consideration of his case However, when he did not get any relief, be filed CWJC No.2594 of 1991 in this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 30-7-1992 (Annexure 2) with a direction to the petitioner to file representation, which was directed to be disposed of within 3 weeks from that date. The petitioner was given liberty to move this Court again if still felt agrieved. 4. It is stated that in the Boards meeting dated 12-3-92 the petitioner was given promotion to the aforesaid post of Scientist But when notification in implementation of the same was issued, the Board took a sarions view of the matter specially against the action of the Chairman of the Board (respondent no.4) who bad put a rider that the petitioner would be promoted subject to the clearance by the Promotion Committee. The Board, in the said meeting deleted that position whereby the chairman had put the rider subject to the clearance by the Promotion Committee. " However, the notification was issued on 16th September, 1992 promoting the petitioner as well as one Sri Shashibhushan Kumar, who was in senior selection grade to the post of Scientist vide Annexure 4. The petitionner however, was not paid his salary of the post of Scientist and in the meantime, the impugned order of the Government as contained in Annexure 1 was issued suspending the effect of the said notification as well as the decision of the Board in that regard. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board as well as on behalf of its Chairman and Member Secretary (respondents 3 to 5)and also on behalf of the State of Bihar and its Dy. Secretary, Department of Forest and Government (respondents 1 and 2 ). Later, a supplementary, counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Hepllay to the said counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the petitioner and a rejoinder to the reply has also been filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 5. 6. In supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is statad that the Board is within the purview of the Bureau of public Enterprise in view of the instructions issued by the Finance (Public eaterprises Bureau, Department of Government of Bihar and hence, rules and regulations as framed by the Bureau regarding promotion is also stristly applicable in the case of Boards employees. Further, it is stated that according to the direction of the Bureau of Public Eaterprises the case of the promotiee should he disposed of by the Promotion Committee under the direction of the said Bureau and the Provision in that regard are mandatory and cannot be overlooked by the Board In support of the said contention instructions issued by the Finance (Public Enterprises Bureau) Department- of Government of Bihar have been annexed as Annaxures A,b,b/2 and C to the said counter affidavit. 7. It is also stated that the Pollution Control Board has also followed such instruction issued by the Public Enterprises Bureau. 7. It is also stated that the Pollution Control Board has also followed such instruction issued by the Public Enterprises Bureau. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that as so service condition has been laid down by the Board under Sec.12 (3, a) (b) the Board vide its resolution contained in memo No.2107 dated 11-8-1988 decided to apply the same terms and conditions of service to the employees of the Board as is applicable in the state Government. 8. Mr. Resurt learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the state Government respondants 1 and 2 contended that under Sec.18 (1)of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the State Government has been empowered to issue direction in regard to the performance of the functions of the Board and the aforementioned instructions, issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprises has not been complied with by the Board before taking decision to promote the petitioner the State Government was justified in suspending its implementation and calling for a report in regard to the same. It was further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the writ is not maintainable against the order contained in Annexure 1, which is interim in nature and no final order has yet been passed because of the matter being subjudice in this court. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the State Government to issue such direction suspending implementation of the Boards decision and its notitication. Learned Counsel referred to Rule 8 of the Water (Prevention and Control of pollution/ Rules, 1988, framed by the State Government after consultation with the Board in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.64 of the Act. Learned Counsel submitted that under the said provisions the Board has been given absolute authority for creation and abolition of posts in the board and for appointment and termination of the appointment on such posts, except in regard to the post, the maximum pay seals of which is above rs.2500/-per month. 10. Learned Counsel submitted that under the said provisions the Board has been given absolute authority for creation and abolition of posts in the board and for appointment and termination of the appointment on such posts, except in regard to the post, the maximum pay seals of which is above rs.2500/-per month. 10. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in any view of the matter, the submission contained in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed oa behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 would show that there is no dispute with respect to the promotion of the petitioner and that the only dispute, if any, is in regard to the promotion of shashi Bhushan Kumar. Thus, the action of the Board suspending the effect of the notification promoting the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order of the State Govt. (Annexure 1) is mala fide and arbitrary. 11. In reply, learned Standing Counsel submitted that there is no substance in the last submission of the petitioner. It was submitted by him that in paragraph 5 of the said counter affidavit it is stated that the order contained in Annexure 1 was issued to enforce the State Governments instractions regarding promotion and appointment as it was observed by the state respondents that no prior consent from the Bureau of Public Enterprises has been obtained by the Bihar Pollution Board in respect of the said promotion of the petitioner. 12. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the pollution Board submitted that on the face of the specific rule empowering the Board to create and abolish post and to make appointment and terminate the appointment made against such post the State Govt. has absolutely no power in regard to the matters relating to appointment of officers and employees of the Board to the instructions issued by the Finance department which have also ever-riding effect cannot be sustained. It was submitted by Mr. Mahto that the said instructions relied upon by the State (respondent Nos.1 and 2) virtually takes away the absolute power of the board vested under Rule 8 of the Rules which is not permitted in law. It was submitted by Mr. Mahto that the said instructions relied upon by the State (respondent Nos.1 and 2) virtually takes away the absolute power of the board vested under Rule 8 of the Rules which is not permitted in law. It was further submitted by him that the State Government has been vested with the power either under the provisions of the Act or the Rules to take away the autonomy of the Board in any manner. By issuing such instructions the Government virtually has attempted to take away the absolute power and autonomy of the Board. 13. In this connection, Mr. Mabto placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.4966/87 disposed of on 20th August, 1991, in which the Hon ble Single Judge relying upon a Division Bench judgment of Ranchi Bench of this Court held that for the purpose of appointing persons by the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board any approval of the state Government is not necessary and the Board is competent, enough to decide whether the pay scale of the particular category of its employes should be revised or not and, further, that no prior approval of the State Government shall be necessary for that. 14. Under Rule 8 of the Rules the power to create and abolish post in different scales as considered necessary for the efficient performance of the functioning of the Board and to make appointment against such post and consequently terminate such appointments made against such posts are vested in the Board except with respect to post the maximum scale of which is above Rs.2500/-per month. S ut-rule (2) of Rule 8 provides that subject to rules, if any, made under Sub-section (3) of Sec.12 the State Board shall have full powers in the matter of appointment. The relevant Rule 8 is quoted below : "creation and abolition of posts- (1) The State Board may create such posts in different scales as it considers necessary for the efficient performance of its functions, make appointment against such posts, abolish such posts so created and consequently terminate the appointments made against such posts ; provided that the State Board shall obtain prior sanction of the state Government for the creation, abolition of and appointment to posts above the maximum pay scale of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred) only per month. (2) Subject to rules, if any, made under Sub-section (3) of Section.12 the State Board shall have full power in the matters of appointments to posts in different scales, promotion, confirmation, transfer and termination of services of officers and employees of State Board. " 15. Section 12 of the Act deals with the appointment of Member, secretary, Officers and other employees of the Board, Sub-section (3) of section 12 provides"that subject to such rules as may be made by the fentral government or. as the case may be, the State Government in this behalf, a board may appoint such officers and employees as it considers necessary for the effecient performance of its functions. 16. It is not a case of the State Government (respondent Nos.1 and 2) that any rule has been framed under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. Thus, it is true that the State Government has been vested with the power in regard to the matters relating to the appointment of the officers and employees in the Beard and that the power of the Board under the Rule 8 cannot be held to be absolute, but the same time, the State Government, in my opinion, does not have the power to interfere with the decision of the board in such manner, which virtually amounts to taking away the autonomy of the Board. The Government can only act in accordance with the powers amananting from the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder and not otherwise. Any action taken by the State Government beyond the purview of the provision of the Act or the Rule framed thereunder cannot be sustained. In the instructions, issued by the Finance (Public Enterprises bureau) Department of Government of Bihar contained in Annexures B/1 b/2 the power of promotion in different undertakings has been vested in the high level selection committee of the Bureau, which is directly inconsistent with the powers given in the Board under the statutory Rule 8. The only exception in the said Rule is that the same will be subject to Rules, if any, made under Sub-section 3 or Sec.12 of the Act. Accordingly, I find substance in the submission of Mr. The only exception in the said Rule is that the same will be subject to Rules, if any, made under Sub-section 3 or Sec.12 of the Act. Accordingly, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appear ing for the Board that the instructions issued by the Bureau relied upon by the State Government, which have over-riding effect over the statutory Rule 8, which fully empowers the Board to create and abolish posts in different scales as considered necessary for efficient functioning and to appoint against such posts and consequently terminate their appointment made against such poss, and fill without jurisdiction. 17. The stand in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents is that the impugned order was issued to enforce state Governments aforementioned instructions regarding promotion and appointment and on it was observed that no prior consent from the Bureau of Enterprises has been obtained by the Board in respect of the appointment of the petitioner, as required in the aforementioned Government instructions, contained in Annexures B/l and B/2, > he impugned order has been passed. In view of the said stand it is clear that the sole ground for suspending the implementation of the Boards notification and decision pursuant to the impugned order is non-compliance of the above mentioned Government instructions, which have been held to wholly without jurisdiction in so far as is releted to the functioning of the Board under the Statutory Rule 8. 18. Accordingly, the impugned order contained in Annexure 1 cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. The respondent Nos.3 to 8 are directed to forthwith release the salary including the arrears for the post of scientist on which the petitioner was promoted. In the result, the writ application is allowed but without costs. Writ Application Allowed.