Judgment :- The petitioner Association has been fighting a long drawn out battle for re-determination of their employment condition. A representation was made on 13.3.1989 for revision of pay scales for the Scientific and supporting staff members of the petitioner-association on par with the comparable categories of persons working in Government Laboratories. They have requested that the anomaly in the different pay scales may be set right. Thereafter Writ Petition No.15332 of 1989 was filed by the Association and final orders were passed on 2.2.1989 by M.Srinivasan,J., (as he then was) allowing the writ petition in part. We are concerned with Clause V of para 27 of the said judgement which runs thus:- (v) The representation made by the petitioner dated 13.3.1989 to the second respondent shall be passed. Such orders shall also decide the question of equation of posts held by the Scientific staff in the employment of the Board with that of the Scientific staff in the employment of the Government. The orders shall be passed within a period of two months from this date and placed before the Government under Regulation 31. The Government shall pass orders thereon within a further period of two months. On the basis of such orders, if the pay scales of the members of the petitioner Association are revised to their benefit, the same shall be given effect from 13.3.1989." 2. The reasons why this direction was granted is that the Learned Judge found on facts that there had been no attempt made by the Board or the Government to decide the question of equation of posts. The Learned Judge also found on facts that while the equation of post is purely an administrative function and the courts power falls within a very narrow scope, yet in this particular case, the repeated requests of the petitioner association for equation of posts on the ground that they are more qualified than the comparable Government employees and doing better work qualitatively and quantitatively "the question has not been considered and decided". 3. Therefore, the direction given above must be read in conjunction with the above observation that this question has not been considered or decided. Therefore the respondents were directed to consider whether in fact the members of the petitioner association were doing better work quantitatively and qualitatively and whether they were possessed of better qualification. 3. Therefore, the direction given above must be read in conjunction with the above observation that this question has not been considered or decided. Therefore the respondents were directed to consider whether in fact the members of the petitioner association were doing better work quantitatively and qualitatively and whether they were possessed of better qualification. Thereafter by letter dated 28.9.1994, the Secretary to the Government, the second respondent herein sent a request to the first respondent Board to implement the orders passed in the above writ petition. The respondent issued B.P.Ms.No.33 dated 6.10.1994 whereunder the claim for equation of the post of Chief Scientific Officer to the post of Chief Water Analyst was rejected and with regard to the posts of Electrical Supervisor, Field Assistants and Lab Assistants it was stated that orders had already been passed in B.P.Ms.No.32 dated 5.10.1994 and the request of the Association to revise the scale of pay for merger on par with Junior Scientists was accepted and the post of the Scientific Assistant was equated to that of the Junior Water Analyst. 4. Under Regulation 31 of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board's Service Regulation, the Board is bound to address the Government for approval of the proposal and this has also been indicated in W.P.No. 15332 of 1989, where the Government was also directed to pass orders within three months from the date on which the Board placed the orders for approval. By G.O.ms.NO.247, dated 6.10.1994, the second respondent communicated its concurrence of B.P.No.33. It is thereafter that the respondents issued the impugned order B.P.Ms.NO.34, dated 10.10.l994. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-association submitted that the impugned order suffer from the following three defects:- (i) The Board's revision has not been placed before the Government for approval as per Regulation 31; (ii) The Board has merely considered the views of the Team of Officers, but has failed to consider the representation of the petitioner-association; (iii)It is not clear when and in what circumstances the Board met after B.P.Ms.NO.33 was issued and further according to the petitioner a Committee has not been constituted for deciding the matter. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that when the order itself indicates a detailed analysis of the conditions of pay of the persons working in the different departments, it is not for this court to decide whether that equation is correct and that the scope of interference is limited. 7. In fact, this aspect of the matter has been considered in (1998) 4 SCC 588 (S.P.Shivprasad Pipal Vs. Union of India). That was a case which arose pursuant to merger of three cadres and the question of equation of posts came up for consideration and the Supreme Court referred to the decision in (1981) 4 SCC 130 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni) which laid down the principles to be considered in the matter of equation of posts and those are as follows:- "These Principles are: In the matter of equation of posts, (a) where there were regularly constituted similar cadres in the different integrating units the cadres will ordinarily be integrated on that basis but (2) where there were no such similar cadres, the following factors will be taken into consideration in determining the equation of posts: (a) Nature and Duties of a post; (b) Powers exercised by the officers holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (c) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post and; (d) The salary of the post. This Court further observed that it is not open to the court to consider whether the equation of posts made by the Central Government is right or wrong. This was a matter exclusively within the province of the Central Government. Perhaps the only question the court can enquire into is whether the four principles cited above had been properly taken into account. This is the narrow and limited filed within which the supervisory jurisdiction of the court can operate." 8. Bearing in mind the limited scope for interference, the impugned order is examined. 9. In the typed set of papers, a tabular column has been included which shows the designation of all the members of the petitioner association and the comparable post in the Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Water Lab) Department and the Public Health Preventive Medicine (Food Lab) Department. 9. In the typed set of papers, a tabular column has been included which shows the designation of all the members of the petitioner association and the comparable post in the Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Water Lab) Department and the Public Health Preventive Medicine (Food Lab) Department. As far as the Chief Scientific Officer, Senior Grade is concerned, he has now been designated as Assistant Director. His nature of work not only includes all activities pertaining to Central Lab. He is also the Board Analyst under the Water (Prevention and Control) Pollution Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control) Pollution Act, 1981. He is also the Government Analyst under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It is claimed that he is in charge of execution of all on going projects. He is the co-ordinator of the Regional Laboratories at Madurai and Salem. He is the co-ordinator to the Government of India Agencies like the Central Pollution Control Board, Department of Ocean Development, Department of Environment, On behalf of the first respondent-Board. He is the Co-ordinator to other State Pollution Control Boards in connection with the Laboratory matters and projects and he is also in charge of the training of Laboratory staff and deputing them to other organisations. The nature of work of the Chief Water Analyst on the other hand is as follows: "Chief Water analyst scrutinises and approves all the technical reports relating to the periodical examinations of protected water supplies private water supplies, sewage and industrial waste analysis etc.," 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the qualification for the post of Chief Scientific Officer is M.Sc., and the qualification for the comparable post of Chief Water Analyst is B.SC., (Honours)/M.A.,/ M.Sc., in Chemistry/Botany/Zoology. 11. This above comparison is only extracted for one of the category since it is not necessary to extract the whole in detail. On the other hand the impugned order merely says that the post of Chief Scientific Officer Senior Grade has since been redesignated as Assistant Director and it cannot be equated with that of the Chief Water Analyst. There is nothing to show that there was consideration of the nature and duties of the post, the powers exercised by the Officers or the minimum qualifications, if any, for recruitment to the posts. There is nothing to show that there was consideration of the nature and duties of the post, the powers exercised by the Officers or the minimum qualifications, if any, for recruitment to the posts. Similar orders are passed with regard to various other categories namely, Chief Scientific Officer, since redesignated as Additional Manager, Deputy Chief Scientific Officer, since redesignated as Deputy Manager, Junior Scientists, now redesigned as Environmental Scientists. 12. It is also not clear from the impugned order why B.P.Ms.No.33 was revised. The order does not show whether these decisions were taken pursuant to a decision taken before 6.10.1994. This cannot be so because, the conclusion drawn by B.P.No.33, dated 6.10.1994 are quite different from the conclusion that are arrived at in the impugned order. It is not clear whether after the Government accorded approval to B.P.33 the Board again met to consider the same question and to pass orders thereon. It is also not clear why the Board had to meet so soon and in a hurry after the Government had approved B.P.Ms.No.33. The entire exercise is shrouded in mystery. When the petitioner association has been repeatedly demanding that the posts have to be equated to comparable posts in the other departments, the revision or reconsideration should have been done in a transparent manner. The order also does not show any application of mind to the salient features pointed out by the petitioner-association for justifying their claim for equation. The order passed by the Board cannot be said to have been done in the spirit of the direction issued by the Learned Judge in the earlier Writ Petition No.5332 of 1989. The impugned order is therefore quashed. 13. The first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner-association in the light of the principles laid down in (1998) 4 SCC 598 which has been extracted above and also keeping in mind the comparative table that has been given by the petitioners after ascertaining whether th facts pointed out by the petitioner are correct and appropriate orders may be passed. The first respondent shall pass orders within two months from the date of receipt of this order and it shall be placed before the Government immediately and the Government shall pass appropriate orders within one month thereafter. 14. The first respondent shall pass orders within two months from the date of receipt of this order and it shall be placed before the Government immediately and the Government shall pass appropriate orders within one month thereafter. 14. If there are any additional materials to support their case, it is open to the petitioners to place such materials before the first respondent within three weeks from the date of this order.