Judgment D. P. Wadhwa, S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In both the appeals the common judgment dated 27th of november, 1985 passed by the learned single Judge in writ-petition C. W. J. C. No.1373 of 1984 analogous with c. W. J. C. No.756 of 1985 is under challenge, which were analogous with some other writ-petitions. It is for the said reason both of them are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. L. P. A. No.1 of 1986 relates to c. W. J. C. No.1373 of 1984, whereas l. P. A. No.2 of 1986 relates to C. W. J. C. No.756 of 1985, both of them have been decided by the common impugned judgment. During the last 10 years of tendency of appeals much development having taken place, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 3. The appellants of both the appeals were initially appointed against the Clear Grade-IV posts under the respondent Bihar State Electricity board ("the Board for short ). Some of the appellants of L. P. A. No.2 of 1986 were provisionally promoted to the clerk Grade II (Head Clerk) posts by one order No.1575 dated 3rd of April, 1976. The said office order was sequently revised by another order No.1537 dated 12th of April, 1977, by which such appellants of L. P. A. No.2/86 were promoted on provisional basis to the said Clerk Grade-II (Head Clerk) posts along with some other persons, including the rest of the appellants. 4. In the meantime, some writ petitions, including C. W. J. C. No.936 of 1976, C. W. J. C. No.1781 of 1976 and c. W. J. C. No.2060 of 1976 were filed before this Court relating to promotion to the higher post of clerk Grade-II (Head Clerk), in which it was decided by judgment dated 26th of August, 1977 to promote persons on the basis of passing of requisite departmental examination. Subsequently some persons, who were promoted to the higher post of Clerk Grade-II without passing the requisite departmental examination, were ordered to the reverted by resolution of the Board dated 23rd of August, 1978, Such persons moved before this court, including one Rudra Pratap mishra and others in C. W. J. C. No.4776 of 1978. challenging the resolution dated 23rd of August, 1978 aforesaid. challenging the resolution dated 23rd of August, 1978 aforesaid. A division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 18th of March, 1983 dismissed the said C. W. J. C. No.4776 of 1978. In the said writ petition two questions arose as to whether passing of requisite departmental examination was necessary for promotion or not and whether certain settlements which were reached between the Union of workmen and Officers of the Board on 2nd/9th of June, 1975 and 24th of June, 1977 can be construed to be a settlement in terms of Industrial Disputes act or not. While dismissing the writ-petition aforesaid, it was held that the so- called settlements, which were earlier made between the union of workmen and the Board cannot be construed to be a settlement as required under the Industrial Disputes Act. The bench further held that the Standing order dated 12th of April, 1965 and the other Standing Order dated 6th of january, 1977 made requirements of passing departmental examination for promotion to higher post. 5. In the meantime, during the pendency of the aforesaid writ-petition c. W. J. C. No.4776 of 1978 another standing Order No.620 was issued on 30th of April, 1980, by which again it was specifically laid down that passing of departmental examination/trade test was essential for promotion of all categories of workmen. The same reads as follows: -"the Board vide its resolution No.4854 adopted at its 330th meeting held on the 21st February, 1980, has decided as follows: - (a) Promotion of all categories of workmen will be made only on their passing the departmental examination/trade test. (b) In case where certain categories of workmen were given promotion in the past without passing the departmental examination/trade test, they will have to pass the departmental examination/trade test in two chances failing which they will be reverted back to their original post.2. The departmental examination/trade test for the above purposes shall be conducted by the respective appointing authority as per guidelines to be prescribed by the Board.3. This order comes into force with immediate effect. " the appellants of L. P. A No.2 of 1986 were continuing against the higher clerical Grade-II post on provisional basis and continued to function against such post even up to the year 1984, without passing the departmental examination. However, the appellants of l. P. A. No.1/86, they had passed the departmental examination in the meantime. " the appellants of L. P. A No.2 of 1986 were continuing against the higher clerical Grade-II post on provisional basis and continued to function against such post even up to the year 1984, without passing the departmental examination. However, the appellants of l. P. A. No.1/86, they had passed the departmental examination in the meantime. Such appellants of L. P. A. No.1 of 1986 having not been promoted to higher post of clerk Grade-II, in spite of passing of departmental examination, moved before this Court in C. W. J. C. No.1373 of 1984 for direction on the respondents to revert such persons from the post of Clerk Grade II, who had not passed the departmental examination and to consider the cases of those very appellants for promotion to the said higher post. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ-petition C. W. J. C. No.1373 of 1984, the respondent-Board came out with one order No.270 dated 21st of January, 1985, by which the appellants of L. P. A. No.2 of 1986, who had not passed the departmental examination, were reverted and the contesting respondents of the aforesaid appeal were prompted to Clerical grade II post. The aforesaid order dated 21st of January, 1985 was challenged by the appellants of L. P. A. No.2/86 in C. W. J. C. No.756 of 1985. Similar other writ petitions, with claims and counter-claims relating to holding of departmental examination for promotion to Clerical Grade II post were also filed. All the aforesaid writ petitions, including C. W. J. C. No.1373 of 1984 and c. W. J. C. No.756 of 1985 were heard together by the learned Single Judge and were disposed of by the impugned common judgment dated 27th of november, 1985. C. W. J. C. No.1373 of 1984 was dismissed; whereas C. W. J. C. No.756 of 1985 was allowed. However, the learned Single Judge ordered to give one opportunity to such persons to pass requisite departmental examination, who had been promoted the higher post without passing such examination (like appellants of L. P. A. No.2 of 1986), failing which to revert them. 6. The appellants of L. P. A. No.1 of 1986 preferred this appeal as their writ petition C. W. J. C. No.1373 of 1984 was dismissed and as no direction was given to consider the cases of these appellants for promotion, to higher post having passed such requisite departmental examination. 6. The appellants of L. P. A. No.1 of 1986 preferred this appeal as their writ petition C. W. J. C. No.1373 of 1984 was dismissed and as no direction was given to consider the cases of these appellants for promotion, to higher post having passed such requisite departmental examination. The other L. P. A. No.2 of 1986 has been preferred by the other appellants, as according to them passing of requisite departmental examination was not necessary and the learned Single judge should not have given direction to conduct examination to test the eligibility to these appellants. 7. When the case was taken up, the Counsel for the appellants of L. P. A. No.1 of 1986 intimated this Court that the appellants have already been promoted to higher Clerical Crade-II post during the pendency of the writ-petition. It was further intimated that other candidates, who had not passed the departmental examination, including the appellants of L. P. A. No.2 of 1986, having not taken chance to appear in the examination, they have been reverted. So, they having been granted relief it is declared that their appeal petition has become infructuous and thereby L. P. A. No.1 of 1986 is dismissed being infructuous. 8. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants of L. P. A. No.2 of 1986 contested the matter, according to him, the Board never prescribed passing of departmental examination for promotion to higher grade. Mr. Jay krishna, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants of L. P. A. No.2 of 1986 while referring the orders of provisional promotion dated 3rd of april, 1976 and 12th of April,-1977 submitted that in such orders of promotions it was never stipulated that the appellants will have to pass departmental examination. He further contended that in such order of promotion it was also not mentioned that such promotion was subject to decision of any case. The learned senior Counsel relied on the standing order dated 12th of April, 1985 and while placing the same submitted that no departmental examination has been prescribed therein for promotion to higher post and thereby tried to impress that the earlier Bench decision of this Court dated 11th of March, 1983 in c. W. J. C. No.4776 of 1978 was erroneous one, wherein it was held that passing of departmental examination was laid down under the standing order dated 12th of April, 1965. So far as the other resolution relating to passing of departmental examination dated 30th of April, 1980 is concerned according to the Counsel appearing on behalf of the L. P. A. No 2 of 1986, such resolution being against the settlement reached between the Union of workmen and the Board dated 2nd/9th of June, 1975 and 24th of June, 1977, agreements will prevail over the resolution dated 30th of April, 1980. In this connection he referred sub-section (2) of Sec.19 of the Industrial disputes Act 1947 and decision of the supreme Court in the case of The Life insurance Corporation of India V/s. D. J. Bahadur and others, reported in a. I. R.1980 S. C. page 2181. So, it was contended that the resolution deed 30th of April, 1980 also cannot be taken into account to hold that passing of requisite departmental examination is necessary for promotion to higher grade. 9. It will be evident from the bench decision of this Court dated 11th of March, 1983 passed in C. W. J. C. No.4776 of 1978 that this Court while interpreting the objective standard of qualifications as mentioned in Standing order dated 12th of April, 1965, held that some sort of test to be applied for promotion to higher grade and if the board so chooses to hold any examination for such promotion, the same cannot be stated to be unreasonable. This court further held that the settlement aforesaid, on which the Counsel for the appellants relied, cannot be construed to he a settlement as required under the "industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 10. Apart from the aforesaid decision of this Court, it will be evident that the appellants of L. P. A. No.2 of 1986 were promoted on provisional basis to the post of Clerical Grade-II, which was a stop-gap arrangement. The orders of promotion dated 3rd of April, 1976 as well as the 12th of April, 1977, both show that the same were not a regular promotions and these appellants were so promoted, without any selection or recommendation, and /or even screening of their service record. The orders of promotion dated 3rd of April, 1976 as well as the 12th of April, 1977, both show that the same were not a regular promotions and these appellants were so promoted, without any selection or recommendation, and /or even screening of their service record. Such being the position, the appellants cannot claim any right to continue against such higher Clerical Grade II post, nor they can be promoted on regular basis to the said post, without passing the requisite departmental examination, particularly when by the time they were reverted, the resolution dated 30th of April, 1980 having taken effect. 11. So far as the contention of the counsel for the appellants of L. P. A no.2 of 1986 that the settlement of june, 1975 and June, 1977 will prevail over and the resolution dated 30th of april, 1980 is concerned, the same is misconceived one. This Court in c. W. J. C. No.4776/78 already held that the aforesaid settlement cannot be termed to be a settlement in terms of industrial Disputes Act, 1947. apart from the same, it will be evident from the so-called settlement of 2nd /9th of june, 1975 that the said settlement only speaks of interim arrangement relating to promotion wherein it was agreed upon to fill up the higher post on the basis of seniority and record of service, pending finalisation of promotion policy. The subsequent so-called agree ment of 24th June, 1977 only reiterates the matter relating to promotion policy, which was to be prepared in consultation with the Union within six months. It is to be taken into note, according to the Counsel for the appellants of l. P. A-No.2 of 1986, no consultation with the Union was made while resolution dated 30th of April, 1980 was published and further according to him, the effect of such agreement dated 24th of june, 1977 will continue beyond six months period, as was prescribed under the said settlements, for years together. This argument also cannot be accepted, particularly when a Bench of this Court held that the aforesaid two settlements cannot be construed to be a settlement in terms of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, according to this court, those two so-called settlements of June, 1975 and June, 1977 are of no help to the appellants, the same being merely an agreement reached between the two parties, having no force of law. Therefore, according to this court, those two so-called settlements of June, 1975 and June, 1977 are of no help to the appellants, the same being merely an agreement reached between the two parties, having no force of law. This apart the appellants having been promoted on provisional basis by orders issued in the year 1976-77 to the post of Clerical Grade-II, without following the procedure of seniority and/or service record, as was required in terms of agreement of June, 1975, these appellants of L. P. A. No.2/86 cannot derive any benefits out of the same. Accordingly, we find no merit in l. P. A. No.2/86. The same is dismissed. No Cost. L. PA. Dismised