P. G. AGARWAL, J. - Heard Sri BK Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri KP Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 8 as well as Sri HK Mahanta, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Employees' Union and the Executives' Association of the Assam State Textbook Production and Publication Corporation Limited for short the 'Corporation' challenging the two orderspassed by the Government of Assam on 5.5.2000 and 9.5.2000 directing the Corporation for constituting of Selection Committee and to pay a sum of Rs. 30,0007 - to the respondent No. 8, who is serving as a Manager production in the Corporation. It is alleged that both the orders are arbitrary and illegal and has been passed to show undue favour to the respondent No. 8. The respondent-state has filed an affidavit in support of their action and the respondent No. 8 has also justified the impugned order. However, the respondent corporation has filed an affidavit supporting the claim of the petitioner. The two impugned orders read as follows : "No. R(I)E 386/99/8, Dated Dispur the 21 st/ 22nd Sept'99 To : Shri P. Das, ACS Managing Director, Assam State Textbook Production & Publication Corporation Ltd., Guwahati-1. Sub : Release of the expenditure incurred. Ref: Petition dt. 19.5.99 Sir, With reference to the petition on the subject cited above, I am directed to say that this Department has examined all the records & Papers submitted by Shri A. Majumdar and in view of this, the Governor of Assam is pleased to accord an approval for release of an amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) as a reimbursement for Court expenditure against the illegal suspension order dated. 28.8.1987. Therefore, you are hereby directed to make payment immediately to Shri Majumdar. The detail records are enclosed herewith. Action taken may kindly be intimated to the Government. This has the approval of the Principal Secretary, Education Department. Yours faithfully Joint Secy, to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department." "NOTIFICATION Dated Dispur, the 5th May, 2000 No.A(l)E 798/98/13 The Govt. of Assam Education Department is pleased to constitute a selection committee to consider the selection Shri A.K. Majumdar (Manager production) to the post of General Manager with the following Directors of the Board of the Corporation. 1. Shri D.C. Barman, Commissioner & Secy., Education Member 2. Shri Bhantikam Hazarika, Director 3. Mr. of Assam Education Department is pleased to constitute a selection committee to consider the selection Shri A.K. Majumdar (Manager production) to the post of General Manager with the following Directors of the Board of the Corporation. 1. Shri D.C. Barman, Commissioner & Secy., Education Member 2. Shri Bhantikam Hazarika, Director 3. Mr. S.B. Medhi, Director 4. Managing Director, Assam State Textbook Production Member-Convenor and Publication Corporation. 5. Dr. Haren Das, Director The selection committee should submit the recommendation within 30 days. Sd/- R.N. Sarma, Addl. Secy to the Govt. of Assam Education Department." 3. The grievance of the petitioners and all employees' of the Corporation is that the impugned orders for payment of Rs. 30,0007- to the respondent No.8 has been passed illegally to benefit the respondent No. 8 and so far the constitution of Selection Committee is concerned, a committee has been constituted for consideration of the case of petitioner alone to a post which is non-existent. 4. The respondent No. 8 had challenged the maintainability of the writ petition that petitioners have got no locus the same and in support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the 'decision of the Apex Court in the case of Binoy Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2001) 4 SCC 734 . In the present case, we find that the petitioners are all employees of the Corporation and the impugned orders according to them was unfair, illegal, arbitrary and amounts to favouritism. Moreover, the scope and ambit of Government intervention in the matter of day to day management of the Corporations is also involved to certain extent. The facts of Binoy Kumar (supra) as altogether different and in view of the allegations and counter allegations, we do not propose to oust the petitioners on plea of preliminary objection. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 has further submitted that the impugned orders are administrative action of the State and this Court in a writ application cannot sit as a Appellate Authority to consider the merit of the case. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the observation of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Financial Corporation vs. JM Cap (India) Ltd., AIR 1993 SC 1435 , the Apex Court observed that if the action of the Administrative Authority shows unfair, unreasonable only then, Court can intervene. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the observation of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Financial Corporation vs. JM Cap (India) Ltd., AIR 1993 SC 1435 , the Apex Court observed that if the action of the Administrative Authority shows unfair, unreasonable only then, Court can intervene. Similar views were expressed by the Apex Court in the later decision in the case of State ofM.P. Vs. MVAyasia (1997) 1 SCC 156 . Hence, in the light of the above, let us consider whether the two impugned orders passed by the State Government are illegal, arbitrary OP not. The respondent No. 8 has placed reliance on Clause 58 & Clause 59(B) on the memorandum and Articles of the Corporation to support the impugned orders. Clause 58 reads as follows :- "58 Notwithstanding anything contained in any of these Articles, the Governor may from time to time issue such directions and instructions as he may think fit in regard to the finances and the conduct of the business and affairs of the Corporation or Directors thereof and in like manner vary and annual any such directives and instructions and the Directors shall duly comply with and give immediate effect to such directions or instructions." 6. The main objects to bring existence of Corporation is mainly for the said articles of Corporation to achieve these objectives. The Board of Directors has been provided to look after the functioning of the Corporation. On perusal of the provision of Clause 58 as quoted above, we find that the Government has retained the power to take policy decision for guidelines from time to time, but does it mean that the Government give directions in a day to day matters or sit as a Appellate Authority on each and every employees of the Corporation. The Corporation are not to be remote control without any responsibility on the part of the Government and apparently, provision of Clause 58 or for that purpose, Clause 59 (B) are not meant for that purpose. 7. The respondent No. 8 being the employee of the Corporation was suspended from service and he filed a suit challenging the order of suspension and subsequently, the said suit was withdrawn by him. 7. The respondent No. 8 being the employee of the Corporation was suspended from service and he filed a suit challenging the order of suspension and subsequently, the said suit was withdrawn by him. The respondent No. 8, now claimed that the said withdrawal was made by him on being assured by the then Minister that expenditure made by him will be reimbursed and that is why, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was directed to be paid by the Corporation without insisting on any Voucher or supporting documents. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand submits that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, for which he was suspended, reached its logical conclusion and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and punishment was meted out to him and the said punishment is still subsisting. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending in the High Court against the order of punishment. The suspension of an employee pending drawal of a disciplinary proceeding is not a rare incident and do face such music employees every now and then. We find cases where employees are suspended and in some case suspensions are found to be correct and in some cases, suspension are found to be uncalled for. The respondent No. 8 had challenged the order of suspension. There is no finding in his favour and as such , there was no ~~^o for navment of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent No. 8. The respondent had also not come up with any plea that such amounts were paid to other employees of Corporation at any other point of time. 8. As regards the constitution of Selection Committee, it is submitted by the petitioners that Government constituted a Selection Committee to consider the case of the petitioners alone to the post of General Manager, although, no such post exists. The leaned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the post of general manager did not exist at the relevant time but it was required to be created simultaneously. Hence without any creating of post a direction to the Selection Committee to consider the case of the petitioner alone cannot be termed as reasonable order and as quoted above, no prudent person can take a decision in the above manner. Hence without any creating of post a direction to the Selection Committee to consider the case of the petitioner alone cannot be termed as reasonable order and as quoted above, no prudent person can take a decision in the above manner. Sri Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is serving since 1973 and for the last 30 years, he is without any promotion. There cannot be any differences of opinion that there should be promotion avenue to each and every employees and case of the respondent No. 8 needs to be considered. Both the impugned orders were kept in abeyance while admitting a writ and in the meantime, some of the proposed members of the Selection Committee have retired from service and in view of the above, writ petition stands allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The respondent No. 8, however will be at liberty to approach the Corporation regarding promotion etc. and we hope that the matter will be considered at the earliest considering the fact that no promotion was given for the last 30 years.