JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Both the writ petitions being connected, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment. 2. Writ Petition (S/B) No. 124 of 2012 is filed by persons, who were originally appointed as Junior Engineers in the Uttarakhand Power Transmission Corporation Limited. Subsequently, on bifurcation and on the basis of the option exercised by them, they were allotted to the Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (PTCUL). They have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and for quashing the decision taken by the respondent No.3 on 29.06.2009 (Annexure No.14 to the Writ Petition) regarding grant of relaxation in training period and regular appointment to direct recruitees. (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the decision taken by respondent No.3 on 29.06.2009 as arbitrary and illegal. (iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring delay caused in holding promotion exercise for the post of Assistant Engineer (E & M) as arbitrary and illegal. (iv) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No.2 to promote the petitioners to the post of Assistant Engineer (E & M) from Feb. 2009 when all others serving in the corporation were promoted. (v) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No.2 to grant salary and other monetary benefits admissible for the post of Assistant Engineer to the petitioners for the period during which they served as Incharge Assistant Engineer.” Whereas, the other writ petition is filed by persons, who were directly recruited as Assistant Engineers in the PTCUL; therein the prayers sought are as follows :- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the office memorandum dated 18.12.2007 issued by Managing Director, Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited, with effect from 14.02.2007, abolishing the post of Junior Engineer (Selection Grade) from the feeding Cadre of Assistant Engineers, being not approved by the Board of Directors. (ii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the promotion order dated 22.08.2009 whereby respondents were promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer, without rendering service on the post of Junior Engineer (Selection Grade), being the requirement of the ‘UPSEB Service of Engineers Regulation- 1970’.” 3. (ii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the promotion order dated 22.08.2009 whereby respondents were promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer, without rendering service on the post of Junior Engineer (Selection Grade), being the requirement of the ‘UPSEB Service of Engineers Regulation- 1970’.” 3. We heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 124 of 2012 Shri Manoj Tiwari, Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel, who appears for the private respondents (Assistant Engineers, who are direct recruits), who also incidentally appears for the petitioners in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 476 of 2012 and also Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the PTCUL. 4. As far as Writ Petition (S/B) No.124 of 2012 is concerned, the complaints, in nutshell, are as follows:- The petitioners were appointed and working as Junior Engineers. They were eligible to be promoted as Assistant Engineers on completion of 10 years’ service, but relaxation was given and the eligibility period was abridged and reduced to 6 years. They became eligible for promotion with effect from February 2009. However, there was procrastination which is unjustified in the matter of promotion and finally they came to be promoted not in the recruitment year 2007-08, instead they were promoted only in August 2009. Secondly, they would contend that the party respondents, who were recruited directly as Assistant Engineers, were issued with orders by which they were to undertake training for a period of 12 months. They came to be issued with such orders in November 2008. Therefore, they could have been appointed as Assistant Engineers only after completion of a period of one year of training and, therefore, they could have been appointed only in November 2009, instead, the Director (Human Resources) of the respondent Company has proceeded by the impugned decision to appoint them in June 2009 which would make their appointments ahead of the appointments of the petitioners and thus they have been enable to steal a march over the petitioners, which is illegal. Substantial ground taken is the Director (HR) was not authorized to cut down the period of training from 12 months as was indicated in the orders of the appointment. It was the Board of Directors which alone could have taken a decision in this regard. He drew our attention to the allegations made in paragraph 24 of the writ petition, which reads as follows:- “24. It was the Board of Directors which alone could have taken a decision in this regard. He drew our attention to the allegations made in paragraph 24 of the writ petition, which reads as follows:- “24. That it is significant to point out here that decision regarding relaxation in training period/any reduction in the duration of training can be taken by Board of Directors of PTCUL and no one else can take such decision. Even the Managing Director is not competent to grant relaxation which has been granted by Director (HR) to the direct recruits on 29.06.2009. It is important policy matter regarding terms/conditions of service which can be dealt only by the Board of Directors.” The answer to the same is found in paragraph 27 of the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation, which is extracted hereunder:- “27. That the contents of Para-23 and Para-24 of the writ petition are denied. The decision of relaxing the training period of AE (Trainees) and to regularize them in the post of AE was taken by the Director-HR in view of the work requirements of the Corporation and shortage of Assistant Engineers. Keeping in view the comments of the then Managing Director on the Agenda discussed on 18.05.2009 with Uttaranchal Power Engineers Association and accordingly the Assistant Engineers were regularize in the posts of AE vide O.M. number 640 dated 29.06.2009.” 5. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that proceeding on the basis of pleadings as settled, it is quite clear that citing reasons as they have done the Director (HR) has usurped the powers which lawfully belonged to the Board of Directors which is clearly unauthorized and what is more it affects the rights of the petitioners as they would suffer supercession at the hands of the Assistant Engineers in a block, whereas if it has not been done, the matter would have been relegated in terms of the rules as per which there is a ratio to be maintained between the promotees and the direct recruits. 6. Per contra, Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the Corporation would submit that actually what happened in regard to relaxation in cutting down the period of training was that though under the rules the period of training is to be fixed by the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors has not fixed the period of training. 6. Per contra, Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the Corporation would submit that actually what happened in regard to relaxation in cutting down the period of training was that though under the rules the period of training is to be fixed by the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors has not fixed the period of training. The rules as such do not provide for a period of 12 months of training. The period of training was fixed by the Director (HR), who issued the appointment orders in favour of the party respondents (Assistant Engineers, who are directly recruited). In view of the contingency, which arose, namely, the lack of qualified hands it was decided to relax the period of training by cutting it short as the period of training was, in fact, undergone in terms of the courses for which they were to be trained. The Director (HR) was satisfied that the direct recruits have received sufficient training as contemplated and, therefore, as he had fixed the period of training alongwith the courses to be undergone during the period of training in keeping with the exigencies of service and felt the necessities of the time it is decided to give relaxation in the period of training which is not illegal. He would also remind the Court actually the respondent is a Company governed under the Companies Act and it has the Board of Directors and having regard to the powers available to the Director, there is nothing objectionable done. He would also point out that the Board of Directors had already taken a decision in regard to the representation of the petitioners seeking notional promotion by rejecting the same and that has not been challenged. 7. Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents made an attempt to draw support from rules to contend that the period of training is actually six months. He would, therefore, contend that the respondents have already undergone six months’ training. He would also remind the Court that the petitioners have approached this Court in 2012 challenging the relaxation in the training given in the year 2009. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Shri Manoj Tiwari would point out that the demarcation of powers between the Board of Directors and the delegated power which the Managing Director enjoyed are clearly demarcated. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Shri Manoj Tiwari would point out that the demarcation of powers between the Board of Directors and the delegated power which the Managing Director enjoyed are clearly demarcated. In this connection, he drew our attention to item No. 2.03 of Annexure CA 21. It reads as under :- “Item No. 2.03 DELEGATION OF POWERS TO MANAGING DIRECTOR. The Board considered the proposal to delegate various powers to Managing Director and pass the proposed resolution with certain modifications as below: “RESOLVED THAT subject to observance of the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company, relevant directives of the State Government applicable to the Company policies, rules, regulations and budgets as may be approved by the Board of Directors from time to time and principles of financial propriety and subject to the general supervision and ultimate control by the Board of Directors, the Managing Director be and is hereby authorized to exercise all or any of the power vested in the Board for the management and administration of the company, except on matters as set out in Annexure “A” in respect of which prior approval of the Board of Directors/Government will be necessary.” “ANNEXURE-A POWERS EXCLUDED/EXPECTED FROM THE DELEGATION OF POWERS TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF UTTARANCHAL LTD. In addition to the matters requiring the approval of any other authorities if any, as set forth in the Articles of Association of the Company, the following will require the sanction/approval of Board of Directors/Government of Uttaranchal as the case may be: 5. Personnel: (a) Framing of, and any changes in Policies, rules and Regulations relating to all personnel matter including creation of posts recruitment, training, manpower development, promotion, deputation and other terms and conditions of service and disciplinary rules and procedures, in respect of employees of the Company.” 9. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that since the matter pertains to training, the issue could have been dealt with only by the Board of Directors and not even by the Managing Director. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that since the matter pertains to training, the issue could have been dealt with only by the Board of Directors and not even by the Managing Director. To the same, Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation would point out that what is prescribed by the relevant Clause, which is referred to, is framing or amending policy relating training, inter alia, among other matters and here by way of relaxation, there is no framing or amending of the policy. 10. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal also would submit that it is a case where period of training was not fixed by the Board of Directors, nor it is prescribed under the Rules at any rate and, therefore, the action is legal. 11. In regard to Writ Petition (S/B) No.476 of 2012 Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, appearing for the petitioners (direct recruits) would point out that by an Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2007, the Managing Director has purported to abolish the post of Junior Engineer (Selection Grade). In short, the case of Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the direct recruits is as follows:- Under the rules, as adopted by the Corporation, the feeding category for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was constituted of the cadre of Junior Engineer (Selection Grade). Only a person, who had continued as Junior Engineer (Selection Grade) for four years, could be promoted as Assistant Engineer. The party respondents, who are the petitioners in the other writ petition, were working as Junior Engineers ordinary. They have not entered the cadre of Junior Engineer (Selection Grade). Without doing that, on the strength of the order of abolition of the post they have been promoted as Assistant Engineers. This is impermissible. 12. The stand of the Corporation on the other hand is that a decision was taken and there is chequered background to it and it has been set out in the following paragraph of the counter affidavit:- “26. The contents of para 11 are partially admitted. Articles of Association of PTCUL under Article 51 (19) provide that the Board of Directors has the power to make, vary and repeal byelaws for the regulation of the business of the company as may be required, for its officers and servants. UPPCL revised the time scales in respect of its employees vide order no. Articles of Association of PTCUL under Article 51 (19) provide that the Board of Directors has the power to make, vary and repeal byelaws for the regulation of the business of the company as may be required, for its officers and servants. UPPCL revised the time scales in respect of its employees vide order no. That the time Scales admissible to the employees were revised in Uttar Pradesh in the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 vide Order No.508 dated 11.09.2006 and Order No.724 dt. 20.11.2006 in respect of Class III employees and Order No.566/kavini aiwm/vetan prabhar, dt. 22.08.2007 in respect of Class IV employees. The Time Scales admissible to the Junior Engineers were revised by UPPCL vide Order No.91-kavini/pakali- 29/07-04-kavini/94 dated 14.02.2007 and vide the same order the post of Junior Engineer (Selection Grade) as provided in the UPSEB Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Service Regulation 1972, was abolished w.e.f. 14.02.2007. Copy of the order of the UPPCL dated 14.02.2007 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA- 1 to this affidavit. The time scale applicable to Junior Engineers were also revised by UPPCL vide Order No.91-kavini/pakali – 29/07-04 – kavini/94 dated 14.02.2007 and in the same revision order, the Junior Engineers (Selection Grade) was also abolished. After the revision of time scales of its employees by U.P. Power Corporation Ltd, the demand was raised by the employees and trade union and associations in all the three corporations in Uttarakhand i.e. UPCL, UJNL and PTCUL, on the plea that the service conditions of erstwhile UPSEB/UPPCL are applicable to them as per the various transfer schemes. Considering the demands of the employees, trade unions and Associations of employees, all the three corporations i.e. UPCL, UJVNL and PTCUL agree to adopt and implement the various orders of UPPCL regarding revisions of time scale for various categories of employees and accordingly the proposals were placed in the Board of Directors meetings of the respective Corporations for approval. The proposal for revision of time scales and abolition of special grade in respect of the post of Junior Engineers in line with the orders issued by UPPCL was submitted in the 16th meeting of the BoDs of PTCUL held on 28.06.2007. The BoD approved the same and authorized the Chairman to take action on this. The proposal for revision of time scales and abolition of special grade in respect of the post of Junior Engineers in line with the orders issued by UPPCL was submitted in the 16th meeting of the BoDs of PTCUL held on 28.06.2007. The BoD approved the same and authorized the Chairman to take action on this. The other two corporations i.e. UJVNL & UPCL had also undertaken the similar exercise and after approval of the respective BoDs requested the GoU for approval and implementation of the revised time scales in the respective Corporations. Considering the request Secretary, Energy, GoU who is also the Chairman of BoDs of PTCUL, vide letter No. 1869/I(2)/2007-06(3)/72/2003 dated 06.11.2007 addressed to MD, UPCL and endorsing the copy of the same to MD, UJVNL and MD, PTCUL conveyed the Govt’s approval for revision of time scales in all the three Corporations subject to the conditions that the revision of time scales can be carried out to the extent of amendments in time scales carried out in the Energy Corporations of Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly, the orders of revision of time scale of Junior Engineers and abolition of Selection Grade were issued by all the three energy Corporations of Uttarakhand vide their respective O.M. PTCUL had issued Office Memorandum No.2440/Admn/PTCUL/C-1 dated 18.12.2007 revising the Time Scales of Junior Engineers and also abolishing the Junior Engineer (Selection Grade). UJVN Ltd had issued OM No.9085/UJVNL/HR/A-1/A-9 dated 18.12.2007 and UPCL had issued OM No.8786-Director (H.R.) K.F.-22 dated 18.12.2007. It is submitted that the selection grade in the post of Junior Engineers has been abolished as per the above orders in all the three corporations.” So, in this view of the matter, he would submit that there is no merit in the case. 13. Coming to Writ Petition (S/B) No.124 of 2012, the petitioners, who were working as Junior Engineers, were accorded benefit of relaxation of provision that they should have 10 years’ service. The period was reduced to 6 years. They became eligible for promotion in February 2009. According to the respondents, there were compelling reasons why the promotional exercise could not be undertaken and completed earlier than when it was completed. The period was reduced to 6 years. They became eligible for promotion in February 2009. According to the respondents, there were compelling reasons why the promotional exercise could not be undertaken and completed earlier than when it was completed. They cite the reason of the declaration of election, coming into force the model code of conduct, vacating the office of Managing Director etc., but we need not be detained by this aspect as we think that the petitioners cannot be granted any relief on the basis that they should be promoted earlier than they have been promoted, namely, in August 2009 and they should be given notional promotion for the reason that their representation in this regard stood rejected by the Board of Directors and the petitioners have not challenged the said decision. Without challenging the said decision, certainly it is not open to the petitioner to claim promotion from an earlier date. 14. We pass on to the question as to whether the petitioners are justified in impugning the relaxation for training period. In respect of that, we have already extracted paragraph 24 of the writ petition and paragraph 27 of the counter affidavit. There is no dispute that the rules actually provide power of the Board of Directors to prescribe the period of training. The case of the respondents is that there is no material on record to show that the Board of Directors had prescribed the period of training as 12 months and in the absence of the same, it must be taken that the Director (HR) was endowed with power to relax requirement which he had fixed in the appointment orders. We are not impressed by the said argument. Going by the pleadings as stand, we come to the inevitable conclusion that under the rules the Board of Directors was obliged to provide for a period of training. Even though there is no material as such available before us to come to the conclusion that in point of fact, the Board of Directors had fixed period of training among other things, we proceed on the basis that action is taken in terms of the rules and not in violation of the rules. That is a presumption which a court of law would normally draw. That is a presumption which a court of law would normally draw. Proceeding, therefore, on the basis of that there was a training programme fixed by the Board of Directors, going by the delegation of powers, we are of the view that there is no authority with the Director (HR) to relax the period of training as was done. If the relaxation could be done, it could have been done by the Board of Directors. Admittedly, there is no relaxation given by the Board of Directors. If relaxation was not done by the Board of Directors, then necessarily the order of appointment of the direct recruits in June 2009, when the period of 12 months’ training was not yet completed, is quite illegal. In such circumstance, we cannot possibly sustain the relaxation or the order of appointment based on the same. 15. We are not impressed, we must say, with the arguments of Shri Vinay Kumar that in terms of Clause 5(a) of The Powers Excluded/Excepted from the Delegation of Powers to the Managing Director. If the Board of Directors is expected to fix a training period under the rules, then it will indeed be a change in the policy. At any rate going by the pleadings, it is quite clear that the decision was not taken by even the Managing Director; it was taken by the Director (HR) and, therefore, no store can be laid by 13 any delegated authority with the Managing Director. No doubt, there is a case for the respondent Corporation that the Managing Director had approved the note put up by the Director (HR). We would think that the power properly belonged to the Board of Directors in this matter and in view of the fact that the Board of Directors has not given the relaxation; we cannot support the relaxation or the appointment. Incidentally, we may note that even in respect of the petitioners, it is a case of the Corporation that as Junior Engineers they were given relaxation but it is admitted that the relaxation was given by the Board of Directors. In such circumstances, we are of the view that Writ Petition (S/B) No.124 of 2012 must be allowed to the extent of quashing the relaxation and the appointment orders and the petitioners are not entitled to any other reliefs. 16. In such circumstances, we are of the view that Writ Petition (S/B) No.124 of 2012 must be allowed to the extent of quashing the relaxation and the appointment orders and the petitioners are not entitled to any other reliefs. 16. As far as Writ Petition (S/B) No.476 of 2012 is concerned, we are of the view that there is no merit in the matter. We are of the view that the post of Junior Engineer (Selection Grade) has been abolished. Apparently, it was a policy decision. Infact, the Government of Uttarakhand had given a direction and it was obeyed apparently by all the three Corporations including the respondent Corporation and the Board of Directors had approved the same. May be it is true that the proceedings for necessary amendment in the relevant regulation which was contemplated to be done separately in the impugned Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2007 was not as such carried out, but we should remind ourselves that we are dealing with a Government Company with a considerable degree of autonomy and once its Board has taken a decision and they have followed it up and also in the cadre there is a change in the cadre brought about by which we find that Junior Engineers (Selection Grade) is conspicuous by its absence, consequent upon the decision taken, the petitioners cannot insist that the amendment in the regulations be made as such separately. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, would further contend that the reduction of relaxation from 10 years to 6 years was not legal. According to him, relaxation was approved by the Board of Directors for the recruitment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 but the promotion was effected in August, 2009, which means it was effected in relation to the recruitment year 2009-10. According to him, for the appointment being made for the recruitment year 2009-10, there is no decision of the Board of Directors. In this connection, he points out that the DPC met on 22.08.2009 but a decision was taken only in September, 2009 i.e. after meeting of the DPC. 18. Per contra, Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the Corporation would point out that actually a decision was taken in the Board meeting dated 07.08.2009 as is evident by the decision in Item No.23.18. 18. Per contra, Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the Corporation would point out that actually a decision was taken in the Board meeting dated 07.08.2009 as is evident by the decision in Item No.23.18. We find from Item No.23.18 that the Board agreed in principle for relaxation in eligibility period of service from 10 years to 6 years (5 years for AMIE/Degree holder). No doubt, with regard to the claim for seniority with retrospective effect, that question was put off till a legal opinion was obtained. Therefore, we would think that it cannot be said that there is no decision of the Board for relaxing the period from 10 years to 6 years for the period 2009-10. In such circumstances, Writ Petition (S/B) No.476 of 2012 will stand dismissed. 19. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, having regard to the fact that the private respondents have been working as Assistant Engineers on the strength of the order and the issue relates only to the power of the Director and the power of the Board is not disputed, we dispose of the Writ Petition (S/B) No.124 of 2012 as follows:- 20. We direct the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation to consider the question, whether the party respondents are to be given relaxation from the training as was apparently done by the Director (HR) and if the Board of Directors come to the conclusion that they are entitled to relaxation, then the fate of the private respondents will be decided accordingly. On the other hand, if the Board of Directors takes the view that the relaxation should not be granted, necessarily the party respondents have to undergo the training for the balance period and thereafter alone they can be appointed. A decision in this regard will be taken by the Board within a period of one month and the private respondents will be allowed to continue as Assistant Engineers in the meantime.