Judgment :- (Writ Petition Is Filed Under Art. 226 of 227 Of The Constitution Praying To Quash The Order Dated 10/24.11.2005 – Annexure H By The 1st Respondent, Etc.) Petitioners herein are the Union of the Housing Board Employees and one Officer – Assistant executive Engineer of the Housing Board. Assailing the order of the government, he has sought for quashing the OM 131/2005-06 at annexure H, issued by the 1st respondent and has also sought for a direction to the respondent Board to repatriate the services of the 3rd respondent to his parent Department. The 1st petitioner is a registered Union and is represented by its Secretary and the 2nd petitioner is an employee of the Board. According to them, under the Karnataka Housing Board Act, Rules have been framed viz., the Karnataka Housing Board (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993. The recruitment to various Boards are governed by the 1993 Rules. The government by order dated 24.2.2003 ordered absorption of the employees of public sector undertakings who are on deputation in other public sector undertakings/Boards (except in government departments). According to the petitioners, My sore Lamps is one of the public sector undertaking of the Government of Karnataka from where the 3rd respondent has been deputed to the 1st respondent Board in May 1998 to work in the Electrical Section in the Engineering Department. The Government addressed a letter to the Board in the matter of continuing the deputation of the 3rd respondent in the Board. In this regard, the 1st respondent corresponded with the government and sought clarification on 10.6.2004 regarding deputation of the Officer from other public sectors and corporations and also regarding their continuation and absorption of persons on deputation and also regarding the financial burden by such absorption. Further, the 2nd respondent addressed a communication dated 10.8.2004 to the 1st respondent pointing out that the 3rd respondent is an employee of the Mysore Lamps and he is on deputation with the 1st respondent since May 1998 and by virtue of the government order dated 11.2.2003, the employees of such public sector undertakings of the government which are declared as sick industries and on the verge of closure are to be absorbed in other public sector undertakings/Boards/Corporations. Accordingly, in that view of the matter, the service of the 3rd respondent has to be absorbed in the Board. Accordingly, in that view of the matter, the service of the 3rd respondent has to be absorbed in the Board. On coming to know of this fact, the 1st petitioner Union took up the issue not only challenging the absorption order by virtue of the government order but also contending that it is in violation of the C & R Rules framed under the Housing Board Act and that there is no Rule providing for such absorption of persons on deputation. Further according to the petitioners, for the post of Electrical Engineer, deputation is permissible only from the KPTCL and not from any other source and the initial deputation of the 3rd respondent is contrary to the C & R Rules. Accordingly, they have sought for quashing the very deputation and also the absorption and also for a direction for repatriation of the 3rd respondent to his parent department. Statement of objection has been filed by the 1st respondent contending that 1st petitioner has no locus standi to question the absorption and 2nd petitioner being an Assistant Executive Engineer cannot have any grievance against the 3rd respondent who is a Junior Engineer and also stating that the Board has taken decision to absorb the 3rd respondent as per the direction issued by the State Government on 27.1.2005 and the Board has to obey the State Government under the provisions of the Act. Further according to the 1st respondent, the direction issued by the State to absorb the 3rd respondent as at annexure F, has not been challenged by the petitioners and it is the policy of the government to absorb certain of the employees of the public sector under takings/corporations/companies when those companies are financially unviable and the petition filed against the said order of absorption on the basis of government policy is not maintainable. Following the instructions of the government soon after the 3rd respondent has resigned from service of the original department and after acceptance of his resignation and after following procedure, the 3rd respondent’s services has been absorbed and, as per the amended provisions of the C & R Rules, there were five posts against four posts earlier created and as against this direct recruitment post, the 3rd respondent has been appointed and his appointment cannot be faulted. According to the objections raised, the petition itself is not maintainable. According to the objections raised, the petition itself is not maintainable. By virtue of the government order, to accommodate and facilitate certain persons who were working in public sector undertaking which were unviable, they have been ordered to be absorbed in various departments of the government and public sector undertakings as such, Mysore Lamps being one of the government company from where the 3rd respondent had been deputed to the 1st respondent Board as a policy of the government and following the procedure, the 3rd respondent has been absorbed into the services of the 1st respondent and even according to the 2nd respondent government, after the amendment of the C & R Rules, one more post was created and totally five posts were available with the 1st respondent. As per the direction of the government and also the order of the DPAR, the 1st respondent absorbed the 3rd respondent as a direct recruitee. Stating that all allegations made are baseless, they have sought for dismissal of the petition. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, similar stand has been taken. Heard the counsel representing the parties. At the outset, it is the submission of the petitioners’ counsel, the Rules framed under the Housing Board Act provides, the Rules be followed in the matter of recruitment to the services of the Board and are in the form of delegated legislation and these Rules supercedes the government order as the government order is not made in connection with any statute and mere government order cannot over ride or over look the provisions of the Recruitment Rules framed thereunder as such, the absorption/recruitment made by the 1st respondent of that of the 3rd respondent by way of absorption/recruitment is non-est and bad in law. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of B N Nagarajan & Ors Vs State of Karnataka & Ors – (1979) 4 SCC 507 and also on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of G Muniyappa Naidu Vs State of Karnataka & Ors – (1976) 4 SCC 543 regarding candidates on deputation and absorption of such candidates contrary to statutory regulations and contended that it is not permissible even though the legislation permits the absorption or sanction by the government. Per contra, counsel representing the 3rd respondent and also the counsel representing the respondent Board submitted that as a matter of policy of the government to accommodate personnel or employees of public sector undertakings where such undertakings/corporations are not viable financially and in order to extent security measures to protect the interest of certain employees, government has taken a decision and such a decision is binding on such undertakings/corporations/companies and by virtue of the mandate issued by the government as a matter of policy and followed by a government order, the same has been implemented by the 1st respondent which does not run contrary to any of the provisions of law much less the Rules. Only such directions or government order would supplement the Rules to accommodate any contingency and there is no question of the Rules over riding the government order or the government order over riding the Rules framed under the Housing Board Act. Accordingly, in support of the argument, government advocate has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs S D Gupta – AIR 1996 SC 3325 to contend that the administrative instructions issued by the government has to be followed. However, according to the petitioners’ counsel, the decision relied upon by the Government Advocate is regarding fixation of roster quota and inter seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees as per the fitment and it is not applicable to a government order and the Rules framed under the Act. Here is a situation where as per the Rules framed under the Housing Board Act, there were four posts available out of which on the basis of the Rules of recruitment, 50 per cent was made available to direct recruitment and another 50 per cent for the promotees. What is pertinent to note in the case is, one more post is created by the government to accommodate a person in a contingency. Government, as a matter of policy, has decided to accommodate some of the efficient officers who are working else where i.e. in the government department or undertaking /corporation/company so as to avail their service and also to extend them security measures and also when it is found that these public undertakings are not viable to be continued. It is to be noted in the context, one post has been created. It is to be noted in the context, one post has been created. It is also submitted the person who was absorbed his seniority would be below all persons who have been recruited either by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion and he would be junior most in the cadre. As regards question of rule prevailing over the government order or the government order prevailing over the Circular is concerned, here such accommodation in contingencies is very much permissible under the provisions of the Housing Board Act though not it is part of the Rules framed under the Act. In this context it is relevant to refer to S.84 of the Housing Board Act which reads thus: S: 84: Government’s power to give directions to Board: The State Government may give the Board such directions as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act and it shall be the duty of the Board to comply with such directions. Of course while contraverting the position, petitioner’s counsel submitted this arrangement is not in the best interest of the institution or the department as such, question of absorption of the 3rd respondent in no way would promote the interest of the Board or it is expedient in the situation. However, what is noted in the context is, the Rules regarding recruitment of persons by way of recruitment or promotion to various posts are framed under the Act. Here is a contingency -as a matter of policy of the government regarding accommodation to be provided to certain persons who were displaced on account of closure of the some of the public sector undertakings and in that view of the matter, the government as a matter of policy has directed the Board to accommodate them without disturbing the rights made available to the employees under the Rules who have been already recruited either by way of promotion or by way of direct recruitment. In that regard, when one extra post has been created to accommodate such person and that too the position of the person so absorbed recruited by creating extra post by way of direct recruitment would be junior most to already employed persons in the Board, then it would not affect the rights of the Union much less the case of the 2nd petitioner who is already senior to the 3rd respondent and has been absorbed in the services of the 1st respondent Board. The 3rd respondent also as per the condition, resigned in the parent department/undertaking. It is to be understood in the context, neither in violation of the Rules nor over riding the Rules, the provision has been created. This provision by a government order is only to supplement the Rules in a contingency as a matter of policy of the government to accommodate displaced persons from unviable government undertakings. This sort of measure is always permissible to the government and Boards are not over and above the government and government policies. In the circumstances, question of either the statute or the Rules framed thereunder overriding the government policy would not arise. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits. Petition is dismissed.