Judgment :- Common Order: This order shall govern these six writ petitions in WP Nos.37443 of 2005, 10055, 50036 and 50037 of 2006 and 1474 and 36692 of 2007. 2. The affidavits filed by the petitioners in all these writ petitions, along with the counter affidavits filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB), who is the main respondent in all these petitions, and also the affidavits filed in support of the petitions by the persons who were sought to be impleaded and accordingly impleaded, are also perused. 3. The case of the petitioner in WP 10055/2006 wherein they have sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider and promote the qualified Assistants (Accounts) to the post of Account Supervisor who possess the passing of Special Test as specified in Rule 96(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation by preparing a panel within the specified time as envisaged in B.P.Ms.(Ch) No.212 dated 16. 1987, alleging that the petitioner Association consist of the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as its members; that the Board in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 79(c) and (k) of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, framed the regulation called Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation; that this writ petition is relating to the Assistant Accounts Officer who comes under Class II and Division VIII (Accounts) and Account Supervisors and Assistants who come under Class II Division VII C of the services; that since these posts are dealing with the accounts side of the Board functioning and as such, it is fundamental that the minimum knowledge of the accounts side is a must for the Assistant, and knowledge of accountancy on medium level is necessary for the post of Accounts Supervisor, and higher knowledge of accountancy in the post of Assistant Account Officer; that these posts are promotional posts; that the Board while framing the regulations prescribed the precondition of passing the special test under regulation 96(1)(b) which is made a must; that it was mandatory that an employee who does not hold the qualification of passing the special test, is not eligible to be considered for promotion; that while so, the Board issued an amendment in the year 1980 inserting Regulation 96B and C which were challenged before this Court in a writ petition; that those provisions were struck down by this Court; that the same was also challenged before the Apex Court; that the Apex Court affirmed the decision of the this Court, and thus, it has become final; that while the matter stood thus, at the time of the wage revision, there was a discussion among the employees Union and also the Electricity Board whereby an agreement was entered into in October 2005; that following the same, objections were raised; that the Board was evading to give answer; that under the circumstances, this petitioner filed a writ petition in WP No.37443 of 2005 to forbear the respondents therein from filling up the post of (existing as well as that may be sanctioned) Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Supervisor and Assistants by giving promotion or by upgradation of the employees who do not possess the qualification of passing the special test as specified in Regulation 96(1)(b) of TNEB Service Regulations, and an interim injunction was also sought for; that while admitting the writ petition, this Court was of the opinion that the stand of the Electricity Board should be made known; that while the matter stood thus, the second respondent by a letter dated 13. 2006, directed the authorities concerned to furnish the particulars in respect of all the Assistants (Accounts) to prepare a panel for the post of Accounts Supervisor; that the second respondent in the communication dated 13. 2006, in violation of the submissions made to the Court, called for the names of unqualified Assistant (Accounts); that after making objections, it became necessary for the petitioner to approach this Court; that under the circumstances, a panel has got to be prepared, and a direction be given to include the persons who are eligible by passing the Test namely Accountancy Lower Grade and others should not be allowed, and hence, they should be promoted for which the above relief is sought for. 4. The petitioners in WP Nos.37443/2005 and 1474/2007 namely an Union and an individual employee, have brought forth these petitions alleging that they have got to be promoted as Accounts Supervisors since they are qualified and passed the said Test. .5. As far as WP Nos.50036 and 50037 of 2006 are concerned, the petitioners therein have sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the Electricity Board to give weightage to a pass in Accountancy Lower Test along with 10 years experience in Accounts Branch vis-à-vis a pass in Accountancy Higher test in preparing the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer from the cadre of Accounts Supervisor based on the petitioners representation dated 26. 2005, alleging that these petitioners have been in service as Assistants in the Accounts Side for a number of years; that they have acquired experience; that apart from that, as on today, the standard tests on accounting will not meet the standards and the procedure developed is used in all the Boards including the TNEB; that apart from that, the insistence of the employees acquiring a pass in the outdated accounts tests which do not meet the requirements of day to day accounting in the TNEB was lacking bonafide; that the tests have no nexus at all with the job content, and a pass in these tests does not equip an employee to meet the rigor of the accounting procedure; that the accounts staff have on-hand training as per the Annual Account Rules; that by doing the accounting in the course of their daily work, the petitioners and equally placed others get well trained in accounting procedures; that the theoretical knowledge gauged by the tests, has no practical applicability, and the criteria for the promotion should include work experience also; that under the circumstances, if a panel has got to be prepared, the petitioners and alike persons who have not possessed the test of accounting, should not be rejected on that ground; that the experience which they gained by the service in the Electricity Board, should be taken into account, and accordingly, directions have got to be issued. W.P.No.36692/2007 is also a writ petition brought forth by an individual in the same line. 6. The learned Counsel for the parties agreed that all these writ petitions should be taken up for consideration. Accordingly, they were taken up by this Court. 7. W.P.No.36692/2007 is also a writ petition brought forth by an individual in the same line. 6. The learned Counsel for the parties agreed that all these writ petitions should be taken up for consideration. Accordingly, they were taken up by this Court. 7. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioners in WP Nos.10055/2006 and 37443/2005 and 1474/2006, who sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the Electricity Board to prepare a panel for the post of Account Supervisors including the persons who have passed the test only, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash, would submit that all these employees are actually in the service; that they are regulated by the Electricity Board Service Regulations; that while making the regulation, the passing of the Accountancy Lower Grade was made a must; that it was prescribed as precondition under Regulation 96(1)(b) which reads that the Accounts cadre in the Offices of Circles and Board Office Accounts Branch – i) Assistant Account Officer – Accountancy Higher Grade; ii) Accounts Supervisor – Accountancy Lower Grade; iii) Assistant – Account Test for subordinate officers Part-I; that under the circumstances, it is made mandatory; that there was an attempt made by the Electricity Board to include Regulation 96B and C; that the same was objected to before the amendment was made; that after the amendment, it was challenged before this Court; that on merits, those amendments were struck down; that thereafter, it was challenged before the Apex Court; that the Apex Court while dismissing the appeal, has also observed that if those unqualified persons have got to be added in the panel, that would be nothing but giving premium to the inefficiency; that under the circumstances, it has become final; that while the matter stood thus, now attempt is being made by the Electricity Board to include those employees who have not passed the Accountancy Lower Grade for the post of Accounts Supervisor; that if it is allowed, it is nothing but allowing them to circumvent the orders passed by this Court; that originally, the Board could not do by introducing the amendment; that after it being struck down, they are making attempts indirectly which they cannot do in law; that further in the instant case, there was a settlement entered into on 110. 2005; that it has also been given effect the very next day; that nowhere it states that the employees to be promoted as Accounts Supervisors need not pass the test; but, it is silent about that; that at the same time, the petitioner Association was also party to the same; that they have also signed; but, they have not quarreled about the entering into the agreement or signing the same or its existence; that even though such an agreement has been entered into, they cannot have the overriding effect over the Rules found in the Regulation book; that even assuming that they have signed, as per the agreement entered into between the Association and the Electricity Board, it was only for the purpose of regularising the work and for allocation of work; that the creation of the post of Accounts Supervisor can be done only by the Regulation; that the original Regulation as on date stands good, and under the circumstances, the Electricity Board cannot be permitted to say that there was a settlement between the Electricity Board and the employees Union whereby they have also agreed, and it would be binding on them, and therefore, they cannot question the same; that the petitioner Association has no quarrel with the settlement entered into; but, at the same time, by pointing to the settlement, the persons who were not qualified with the Accountancy Lower Grade, cannot be allowed to say that they are also entitled to be included in the panel or for promotion; that it is a promotional post; that so long as Rule 96(1)(b) makes it mandate that the Accountancy Lower Grade should be passed, no question of inclusion of others would arise; that the Electricity Board, at the time of filing of the original counter and the subsequent counters two in number, have got a different stand; that as on today, more than 2000 posts were shown to be vacant; that a panel has also been prepared; that they have not been given postings despite the preparation of the panel and also existence of the vacancies; and that under the circumstances, the writ petitions have got to be ordered in favour of the petitioners granting the relief. 8. 8. Contrary to the above contentions, the learned Senior Counsel for the Electricity Board would contend that as far as WP No.10055/2006 is concerned, it has become infructuous for the reason that originally there was a panel prepared which would contain 1677 employees who have passed the required test, and out of them, 1000 have already been given postings; that only 677 is the remainder; that the panel came to be prepared on 212. 2006; that it has got its one year period validity; that if to be so, it comes to an end on 212. 2007; that now, as on today, once the petitioner comes forward for a writ of mandamus to direct the Electricity Board to prepare a panel to include the persons who have passed the required test, and accordingly, it has been prepared, and the panel would include only those who have passed the required test, and out of 1677, 1000 have actually been posted, the petitioner Association cannot be stated to be an aggrieved party or they cannot have any grievance to ventilate, and hence, that writ petition has got to be dismissed as infructuous. 9. As far as WP No.1474/2007 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for TNEB would submit that as could be seen from the available materials, he is only a Junior Assistant, and he has passed the test in the year 1988; that he is not competent even to compete for the post because he has not attained the actual post of the Assistant, and hence, that writ petition has got to be dismissed. 10. 10. As regards the other writ petitions, the learned Senior Counsel for TNEB would submit that there was a settlement entered into between the parties wherein it has been clearly understood that all have got to be provided; that even a reading of the settlement would make it clear that there was allocation of work; that even the work what is available for the Accounts Supervisors and also to be given to them could be done by the Accounts Assistants; that as on today, there would be revised assessment of vacancy; that as far as the future is concerned, there is all possibility of making any amendment or alteration or introducing a new policy for which the petitioners cannot compel the Electricity Board to do this way or that way, and under the circumstances, the writ petitions do not require consideration, and they have got to be dismissed. 11. As far as the petitioners in WP Nos.50036 and 50037/2006 and 36692/2007 are concerned, in support of those petitions, the learned Senior Counsel Mrs.Hema Sampath appearing for the petitioners, and also the learned Counsel for the proposed parties who have been added as respondents, would submit that in the instant case, there was a settlement entered into between the employees of the Electricity Board and also the Board on 110. 2006; that it has also been given effect the very next day; that it is also a settlement entered into under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act; that in the instant case, it cannot be stated that it would not be binding on the petitioner Association in the other writ petition; that their contention that they are the only qualified persons since they have passed the test, and therefore, they are the only eligible persons has got to be rejected for the reason that there was a collective bargaining as a result of which, the settlement has come into force; that a reading of the settlement would make it clear that the posts are created, and apart from that, allocation of work is also made clear; that under Sec.18(2) of the I.D. Act, it will have binding nature; and that the other contention that the regulations are available and they have got mandatory and binding effect, and under the circumstances, the settlement entered into between the parties, cannot be given effect has got to be discountenanced in view of the settled principles of law. 12. 12. Relying on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1981-I LLJ 1 (L.I.C. V. D.J.BAHADUR AND OTHERS), the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, these regulations have come from the statutory provisions under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, was only a general law; that as far as the industrial dispute is concerned, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have found that it was a special law; that under the circumstances, once the settlement has been entered into by way of collective bargaining and where all the employees in particular these petitioners, were also members of the association, that would be binding on them, and it would have prevailing effect over all the regulations what is found therein; that the contention put forth cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it is a post not by way of promotion, but of upgradation; that in the instant case, after the settlement was entered into, it was given effect the very next day; that the post of Accounts Assistant has been abolished, and thus, the feeder category post was not subsequently available, and thus, it would be quite clear that it was a post on upgradation and not on promotion; that further, in this case, once the panel has been prepared and the special enactment would prevail, it would have a binding nature; and that having been a party to the settlement, those petitioners are estopped from either questioning or making an escape from the covenants therein. 13. Added further the learned Counsel that the contention put forth by the petitioners side that the regulation alone can create post and what is found therein is only allocation of work cannot be accepted for the reason that originally, such a settlement has been actually entered into and taking into account and in appraisement of the circumstances only, there was allocation of work of the Accounts Supervisors which was actually given to Accounts Assistants. 14. 14. Added further the learned Counsel that the respondents who have been impleaded and also the petitioners in WP Nos.50036 and 50037/2006 and the employees alike them have been in the service for more than decades; that once the panel has been prepared, they have got to be added; that a reading of the settlement which was entered into between the employees association and the Electricity Board would also indicate that it is not only in respect of allocation of work, but also for the revision of wages; that those petitioners having been a party and having received the benefit of the wages in the past, now they cannot be permitted to say that a part of the settlement which is in their favour they would take it and the other part of the settlement which is not favourable to them, they will drop out; that under the circumstances, once the settlement is acted upon, it would be binding on all the parties though they are not signatories; that in the instant case, the petitioner association was also a party, and it would be binding on them, and thus, it has binding force; that under the circumstances, a direction has got to be given that all these persons though they have not passed the test, must also be equally treated along with others in view of the circumstance, and accordingly, orders have got to be passed. 15. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 16. It is not in controversy that the services of the Electricity Board employees are regulated by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. Regulation 96(1)(b) reads thus: "ACCOUNTS CADRE IN THE OFFICES OF CIRCLES AND BOARD OFFICE ACCOUNTS BRANCH i) Assistant Accounts Officer – Accountancy Higher Grade ii) Accounts Supervisor – Accountancy Lower Grade iii) Assistant – Account test for subordinate officers part-I As could be seen above, to become an Accounts Supervisor, the Assistant has to pass the Accountancy Lower Grade. Originally, an amendment was sought for to include Regulation 96B and C. The same was challenged before this Court, and those amendments were found to be illegal, and thus, they were struck down. The same was also challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court affirmed the view taken by this Court by a decision on 22. Originally, an amendment was sought for to include Regulation 96B and C. The same was challenged before this Court, and those amendments were found to be illegal, and thus, they were struck down. The same was also challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court affirmed the view taken by this Court by a decision on 22. 1995, wherein it is found that if a person who has not qualified, is added by allowing those amendments, it would be of adding premium to inefficiency. Thereafter, those amendments sought for were actually deleted. 17. It is also not in controversy that a settlement was entered into between the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the employees who constitute the Unions, on 110. 2005, and the same was given effect from the very next day i.e., 110. 2005. The first contention put forth by the Electricity Board that WP No.10055/2006 has become infructuous because a panel has already been prepared which would include only the qualified persons who have passed the said test and who are 1677 in number, out of whom 1000 have actually been posted as Accounts Supervisors, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that after the filing of the writ petition and while the matter is pending in this Court, such a panel has been prepared, and the entire persons/employees whose names are found in the panel, have not been provided with the posting. Thus, that contention has got to be rejected. 18. The case of the petitioners in WP Nos.10055/2006, 37443/2005 and 1474/2006 is that a direction has got to be given to the Electricity Board to prepare a panel including only the qualified persons who, according to them, have passed the Accountancy Lower Grade. This contention cannot be accepted for the following reasons. It is true that the Regulation 96(1)(b) as referred to above, reads so. On the earlier occasion when an attempt was made by the Electricity Board to add amending regulation, it was challenged before this Court by a single individual, and also on a decision, the proposed amendments were struck down. Thereupon, the Electricity Board took it on appeal before the Apex Court where the judgment of this Court was affirmed. On the earlier occasion when an attempt was made by the Electricity Board to add amending regulation, it was challenged before this Court by a single individual, and also on a decision, the proposed amendments were struck down. Thereupon, the Electricity Board took it on appeal before the Apex Court where the judgment of this Court was affirmed. It is pertinent to point out that the circumstances which prevailed and attendant at the time when those amendments were challenged in the writ petition, are not the circumstances now noticed by the Court. At the time when the writ petitions in WP Nos.10055/2006, 37443/2005 and 1474/2006 filed by the petitioners stating that they have passed the Accountancy Lower Grade, and hence, they are the only eligible persons to be promoted as Accounts Supervisors, admittedly a settlement was entered into between the Electricity Board and the Employees Union. The petitioners Union in WP Nos.10055/2006 and 37443/2005 and the other Unions were also parties to that settlement. They have also signed the same. As could be seen, it cannot be a matter of controversy that the settlement was an outcome of the collective bargaining. At this juncture, once a settlement was entered into between the parties to put an end to the controversy in a particular stage, and it is also under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it has the binding force on all the parties under Sec.18(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 19. The contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that it is true that there was a settlement, and the petitioners Union was also a party to the settlement; but, the settlement cannot supersede or take away the Regulation 96(1)(b) wherein the passing of the Accountancy Lower Grade for the post of Accounts Supervisor is made mandatory. A question arose before Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported in 1981-I LLJ 1 (LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA V. D.J.BAHADUR AND OTHERS) as to whether a settlement entered into between the parties under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act having binding force under Sec.18(2) of the Act, would prevail or the Regulations which have emanated from the provisions of the L.I.C. Act like Electricity (Supply) Act, would prevail. Their Lordships have taken the view that the L.I.C. Act, like the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, is only a general statute, and the Industrial Disputes Act is a special enactment, and hence, the settlement entered into between the parties as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, would prevail. It would be more apt and appropriate to reproduce that part of the decision of the Supreme Court above referred to, as follows: "52...... I respectfully agree and supply the reasoning and the conclusion to the near-identical situation before me and hold that the I.D. Act relates specially and specifically to industrial disputes between workmen and employers and the L.I.C. Act, like the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, is a general statute which is silent on workmens disputes, even though it may be a special legislation regulating the take-over of private insurance business." 20. In the instant case, a settlement was entered into by way of a collective bargaining in which the petitioners Association was also a party. They have signed the agreement. It remains to be stated at this juncture that the petitioners Association was not only a party to the said settlement which would be binding on all the parties therein, but also they have derived benefit out of it. Having been a party to a settlement, which has got binding force and having taken benefit in respect of the revision of wages also, now the petitioners Union cannot be allowed to say that it will not have the binding force. 21. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would further add that it is true that there was a settlement and that would be binding on all the parties; but, a reading of the settlement would make it clear that post was created; but, it did not speak about the qualification and how it has got to be worked out. This contention cannot be countenanced. Part II of the settlement reads thus: PART II WORK ALLOCATION AND STAFF PATTERN FOR ACCOUNTING STAFF IN REVENUE BRANCH OF DIVISION OFFICE IN DISTRIBUTION CIRCLES TABLE 8) The Unions shall co-operate with the Management in implementing the computerization of Assessment and collection in a phased manner as agreed to in the earlier settlement. This contention cannot be countenanced. Part II of the settlement reads thus: PART II WORK ALLOCATION AND STAFF PATTERN FOR ACCOUNTING STAFF IN REVENUE BRANCH OF DIVISION OFFICE IN DISTRIBUTION CIRCLES TABLE 8) The Unions shall co-operate with the Management in implementing the computerization of Assessment and collection in a phased manner as agreed to in the earlier settlement. Wherever the computerization of L.T. Assessment and Collection is in progress or is completed, the Accounts Supervisor shall carry out the work in the computerized environment relating to record keeping, entering data, checking/providing data, sending MIS to central office/Head quarters etc., as assigned by the Superiors without confining to norms. Any modification in the work norms due to the introduction of computerization shall be discussed with Unions." 22. A perusal of the above would clearly reveal that the work which has been originally allotted to the Accounts Supervisors, can also be done by the Accounts Assistants as per the allocation. It could also be further seen that pursuant to the settlement entered into between the parties, the post of Accounts Assistant was actually abolished. Now, at this juncture, it would also speak of the distinction between the promotion and the upgradation. In the case of promotion, a person who is in the lower category, is being promoted to higher post in which the feeder category has to continue. In the case of the upgradation, a person who is in the upper category of service, is given benefit, and his post is upgraded, and in such a situation, the feeder category need not exist. In the instant case, the abolition of the post of Accounts Assistant would clearly indicate that it was never considered as promotional post, but only an upgradation. For the above reasons, the petitioners cannot come forward with a case to state that they are the only qualified persons since they have passed the Accountancy Lower Grade and others who have not passed the test, cannot be included in the panel. From the counter filed by the Electricity Board and the agreement entered into, it would be clear that the work done by the Supervisors in the past, could be done by the Assistant also. 23. From the counter filed by the Electricity Board and the agreement entered into, it would be clear that the work done by the Supervisors in the past, could be done by the Assistant also. 23. Now, at this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of the Court that by that settlement, for the post of Accounts Assistant and also the Accounts Supervisor, they are equally paid, and by their experience, the persons who have qualified by passing the said test, get the equal pay with the Accounts Supervisors. Under the circumstances, it would be quite clear that both are equally paid. According to the Electricity Board, the work that has been done all along in the past by the Accounts Supervisors, could also be done and is being done by the Accounts Assistant also. .24. Apart from all the above, the crowning circumstance in the instant case is that the persons, who, according to the petitioners, have passed the test are nearly about 2000 and odd, and actually a panel has been prepared which would include 1677, and 1000 as on today, are posted as Accounts Supervisors, and 677 are actually in the panel, and they have got to be provided with. If the entire strength of the persons who have passed the Accountancy Lower Grade, are provided with, they cannot have any grievance for providing the post of the Accounts Supervisor to the other persons namely Accounts Assistants. Besides that, a strong circumstance in favour of the petitioners in WP Nos.50036 and 50037/2006 and 36692/2007 is that the post of Accounts Assistant has been abolished. Therefore, this Court is of the view that a discrimination cannot be drawn between the persons who have passed the test namely Accountancy Lower Grade, and those, who have not passed that test, and hence, no difference could be noticed. 25. Now, at this juncture, the contentions put forth by the Electricity Board have got to be considered. All the counters filed by the Electricity Board, when scrutinized, this Court is at a loss to understand what the stand of the Electricity Board is. It is not in controversy that the Electricity Board pursuant to the settlement, has prepared a panel, wherein it is stated as 1677 persons who have actually passed the Accountancy Lower Grade. All the counters filed by the Electricity Board, when scrutinized, this Court is at a loss to understand what the stand of the Electricity Board is. It is not in controversy that the Electricity Board pursuant to the settlement, has prepared a panel, wherein it is stated as 1677 persons who have actually passed the Accountancy Lower Grade. Now, in the latest additional counter it is stated that there would be revised assessment of vacancy, and it has no proposal to promote or provide for anybody. At the time of the initial stage when the counter was filed, according to the Electricity Board, there was a panel having number 1677, and when the latest counter is filed pending the proceedings, as on today, the Electricity Board cannot say what is the existing vacancy. The intervening circumstance is that how the rest of the post was filled up remained unknown. Once a panel was prepared by the Electricity Board stating the vacancy as 1677, the Electricity Board before the preparation of the panel, should have assessed how many could be provided with the post, and without that, such a panel should not have been prepared. .26. The contention put forth by the Electricity Board that it is a policy matter, and the Electricity Board can have its own policy, and the new settlement can be amended and altered, and they are entitled to do so, and even the petitioner cannot compel, and the Court cannot interfere at that stage, and these are all principles of law, could be accepted. But, as on today, there is a settlement entered into between the parties, and the settlement has got to be worked out. In such circumstances, the Electricity Board cannot say that it would not be binding, or it can have policy pending the settlement. Even the reading of the settlement would make it clear that for any amendment or alteration or anything, it cannot do unilaterally. It must have the employees also and take a decision. 27. Now, the contention put forth by the Electricity Board that there will be revised assessment of vacancy or it will change its policy cannot be countenanced even for a moment. Now, a panel consisting of 1677, has been prepared, out of whom 1000 have been provided with postings. It is pertinent to point out that the validity of the panel is only upto 212. 2007. Now, a panel consisting of 1677, has been prepared, out of whom 1000 have been provided with postings. It is pertinent to point out that the validity of the panel is only upto 212. 2007. Hence, it is made clear that the Electricity Board must honour the settlement entered into, and must appoint the persons as Accounts Supervisors as found in the panel, in the existing vacancies. It is true that the Electricity Board cannot be compelled to create vacancy. But, at the same time, there cannot be any impediment for the Electricity Board to fill up the vacancy by giving the necessary post to the persons in the panel originally made, who, according to both sides, are 677 in number by exhausting the list. 28. As could be seen from the counter, the Electricity Board does not want to give priority or preference or make a discrimination between the persons who have passed the Accountancy Lower Grade and the persons who have not passed that test. Under the circumstances, there is no impediment in issuing a direction to the Electricity Board to give the postings to the persons first as per the panel from the existing vacancy and if available more or anything comes in future as per the agreement entered into between the parties, to give it to the persons who have not passed the Accountancy Lower Grade. This system would prevail till any policy decision is taken by the Electricity Board in future as could be seen from the agreement entered into between the parties. It is also made clear that the panel has got its validity only till 212. 2007. Hence, the Electricity Board is directed to give effect to the panel as per the observations made above, on or before that date. 29. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Mps and WPMP are closed.