JUDGMENT K.G.Balakrishnan, J. 1. Both these Writ Appeals have been filed against the Judgment in O. P. No. 473/94. The first respondent in the Original Petition is the appellant in W.A. No. 669/94 and fourth respondent is the appellant in W.A. No. 207/94. The Coconut Development Board is a statutory Board constituted by the Government of India. The employees of the Board are appointed by the Board in accordance with the Regulations framed by the Board under S.7 and 20 of the Coconut Development Board Act, 1979 (for short 'the Act'). The Chairman of the Board is the Chief Executive and functionary to discharge and implement the decision of the Board. 2. The petitioner in the Original Petition was appointed as Publicity Assistant in 1974 in the erstwhile Directorate of Coconut Development. After the formation of the Board under 1979 Act, she was promoted as Sub Editor and was continuing as such. In 1983 a Hindi Cell was constituted under the Coconut Development Board consisting of five officers. 3. The appellant in W.A. No. 207/94 was also officiating as Sub Editor (Hindi) from 14th February 1989. The promotion to the post of "Hindi Officer" is from the category of Sub Editors. The petitioner in the Original Petition was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Hindi Officer. The fourth respondent challenged the promotion of the petitioner in O.P. No. 6772/92. In that Original Petition the Board was directed to take final decision on the question whether the feeder category for promotion to Hindi Officer should be restricted to Sub Editor (Hindi) or not. Subsequent to this, the Board passed a Regulation known as Coconut Development Board (Hindi Officer) Recruitment Regulations, 1993. Under the Regulations the method of recruitment is promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation and failing both by direct recruitment. In the case of appointment by promotion, the post of "Sub Editor" was included in the feeder category. The Regulations were submitted to the Central Government for its sanction under sub-s.(1) of S.20 of the Act. The Central Government sanctioned and published the Regulations by a notification on 12th November 1995. But while granting sanction to the Regulations, the word "Hindi" was added to qualify the post of Sub Editor and by this modification for the post of Hindi Officer, "Sub Editor (Hindi)" alone became qualified for promotion. The Central Government sanctioned and published the Regulations by a notification on 12th November 1995. But while granting sanction to the Regulations, the word "Hindi" was added to qualify the post of Sub Editor and by this modification for the post of Hindi Officer, "Sub Editor (Hindi)" alone became qualified for promotion. The result is that the petitioner V. J. Chandini who was working as Sub Editor was not qualified to be promoted to the post of Hindi Officer and the fourth respondent V. K. Kanakalatha who vas working as Sub Editor (Hindi) was qualified to be promoted as Hindi Officer. The petitioner V. J. Chandini challenged the provisions of the Regulations, as approved by the Central Government, in the Original Petition. She contended that under sub-s.(1) of S.20 of the Act, the Central Government was not competent to alter or modify the regulations which are submitted for approval. The fourth respondent contended that while granting approval the Central Government is competent to make any alteration or modification to the Regulations, especially in view of sub-s.(3) of S.20 of the Act. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the language of sub-s.(1) of S.20 which requires the Government to sanction the Regulations is significant and the power to accord sanction does not include the power to modify or alter the regulations and the learned Single Judge held that the Central Government by modifying/ altering the Regulations, acted in excess of its authority and the Original Petition was allowed and the insertion of the word "Hindi" after the word "Sub Editor" in the Regulations was held to be void and the learned Single Judge held that the feeder category for promotion to the post of Hindi Officer shall be read as "Sub Editor" and not "Sub Editor (Hindi)". The finding of the learned Single Judge is challenged before us. 5. We heard the appellant's counsel, learned standing counsel for the Central Government and also the counsel for the first respondent herein. S.20 of the Act reads as follows; (1) "The Board may with the previous sanction of the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, make'regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: (a) the times and places at which meetings of the Board or any other committee thereof, shall be held and the procedure to be followed thereat, and the number of members which shall form a quorum at a meeting under sub-s.(10) of S.4. (b) the method of appointment, the conditions of service and the scales of pay and allowances of any of the officers and other employees of the Board under sub-s.(6) of S.7. (c) generally, for the efficient conduct of the affairs of the Board. (3) The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, modify or rescind any regulation sanctioned by it and the regulation so modified or rescinded shall have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be so however, that any such modification or rescission shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything done under the regulation before its modification or rescission." Section 20 of the Act says that the Board can make any regulation which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder in order to give effect to the provisions contained in the Act. Sub-s.(1) of S.20 of the Act says that the Regulations framed by the Board shall be submitted to the Central Government for sanction and only after such sanction, notify the same in the Official Gazette and then only the Regulations will have the force . The Board is not given any absolute power to make any regulation. The power to make regulation is only restrictive, in the sense the Board shall obtain sanction of the Central Government. Another important clause in S.20 is sub-s.(3) of S.20. This sub-section empowers the Central Government to modify or rescind any regulation which has already been sanctioned by the Central Government. Therefore, the absolute power of amendment of the regulation is given to the Central Government by S.20 (3) of the Act. But if any act was done or decision taken on the basis of the provisions contained in the regulations, such act or decision will not become invalid by reason of such subsequent modification or rescission made by the Central Government. But if any act was done or decision taken on the basis of the provisions contained in the regulations, such act or decision will not become invalid by reason of such subsequent modification or rescission made by the Central Government. Therefore, the power of the Central Government to modify or rescind the regulation can be exercised only without prejudice to the acts already done under the provisions of the regulations. Except this, the Central Government has got an unlimited power to rescind or modify any of the provisions contained in the Regulations. Significantly no such power is given to the Board. If the Board wanted any amendment to the Regulations, it had to be again submitted to the Central Government for its approval. 6. The question to be considered is whether the Central Government, while granting sanction under S.20(1) of the Act, can make any modification or alteration to the proposed Regulations submitted by the Board. In view of the unrestricted power given to the Central Government under sub-s.(3) of S.20 of the Act, we are of the view that the Central Government can alter or amend the clause in the proposed Regulations which was submitted for approval. The power to grant sanction includes the power to reject sanction. If the provisions contained in the proposed Regulations are not acceptable to the Central Government, it can either suggest modifications to the proposed Regulations or decline to grant sanction. If the sanction is not granted, the Board has naturally to submit the Regulations again for approval. We do not think that the sanction contemplated under S.20(1) of the Act is only an administrative order, but it is essentially a legislative function. When the Central Government exercised this legislative function, it does a responsible job and has to consider whether any of the provisions contained in. the proposed Regulations is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It cannot be assumed that the Central Government while exercising the legislative function has to do the same mechanically and approve whatever suggested by the Board in the proposed Regulations. Insertion of the word "Hindi" after Sub Editor was perfectly in accordance with the power of sanction given to the Central Government under S.20 (1) of the Act. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. Therefore, we reverse the same and allow these appeals.