ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. The interesting conundrum in this case is whether in absence of approval of Madhya Pradesh Grih Nirman Mandal Sewa (Shreni I Avam II Ki Bharti Avam Sewa Sharte) Viniyam 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations"), as per Section 15(2) and 103(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Housing and Development Infrastructure Board Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam"), the respondents can deprive the petitioner from his right of consideration for promotion on the post of Additional Housing Commissioner ? 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner possess qualification of Bachelor of Electrical Engineering. He is working on the post of Dy. Housing Commissioner with the respondent Board. He has completed more than five years of service on the said post. The next promotional post is the post of Additional commissioner, Housing Board. The petitioner contends that Section 15 of the Adhiniyam deals with conditions of service of Officers and servants. As per Section 15 aforesaid, the Board is required to frame Regulations. Section 103 is the source of power to make Regulations. 3. Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although Regulations were framed by the Board and sent to the State Government for approval, the same are not approved and confirmed by the State Government till date. In absence thereto, as per Section 15(2), the service conditions and rules applicable to the officers and servants of corresponding grade in the service of the State Government will continue to apply for promotion in the Board. By placing heavy reliance on the M.P. Public Works Department Engineering (Gazetted Recruitment) Rules, 1961 and the M.P. Public Works Department, Engineering-in-Chief/Chief Engineer Recruitment Services Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to "1983 Rules"), it is urged that for the promotional post of Chief Engineer in Public Works Department, the candidates possessing the degree of BE in any stream are entitled to be considered. There is no need in those rules to have qualification of BE in Electrical or Civil or in a particular stream. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as per the Schedule appended to the Regulations (Page 46), the post of Additional Commissioner is a promotional post of Dy. Commissioner and the officer holding the feeder post must possess qualification of BE in Civil Stream. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as per the Schedule appended to the Regulations (Page 46), the post of Additional Commissioner is a promotional post of Dy. Commissioner and the officer holding the feeder post must possess qualification of BE in Civil Stream. The bone of contention of petitioner is that in absence of approval and confirmation of the Regulations by the State Government, the Regulations have not become effective and hence cannot be a reason to deprive the petitioner from his right of consideration for promotion flowing from Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. 4. Shri Praveen Dubey contends that the post of Dy. Commissioner in the Board is equivalent to the post of Superintending Engineer whereas the post of Additional Commissioner is equivalent to the post of Chief Engineer. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner has a valuable right of consideration for promotion as per the Rules applicable to the Public Works Department in the present Board. As per those Rules, the petitioner's right of consideration for promotion cannot be taken away. 5. Reliance is placed on (1998) 4 SCC 114 (Vimal Kumari v. State of Haryana) to contend that draft rules can be made applicable only in emergent situations. It cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. During the course of argument, Shri Dubey relied on various documents to show that Regulations have not been approved and confirmed by the Government. Various DPCs which were convened in 2009, 2012 and 2013 considered the officers for promotion on the basis of Rules applicable in the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department. Lastly, it is submitted that the post of Additional Commissioner is an administrative post and, therefore, the qualification of BE in Civil Engineering even otherwise is of no significance. 6. Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 relied on the averments of the return and urged that the petitioner was promoted as Dy. Commissioner on the basis of same Regulations which is said to be inapplicable by the petitioner. Hence, petitioner cannot now turn around and say that those Regulations are not applicable. 7. It is further stated that the post of Additional Commissioner is to be filled up as per Regulation of 1992. Essential qualification for this post is Bachelor in Civil Engineering. This mandatory eligibility condition cannot be waived. Hence, petitioner cannot now turn around and say that those Regulations are not applicable. 7. It is further stated that the post of Additional Commissioner is to be filled up as per Regulation of 1992. Essential qualification for this post is Bachelor in Civil Engineering. This mandatory eligibility condition cannot be waived. Reliance is placed on 1987 (4) SCC 738 (V. Balasubramaniam and others v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board and others), to contend that in absence of statutory Rules or notified Regulations, the executive instructions can hold field. Reliance is placed on the DPC proceedings, which are marked as Annexure-R/1. However, along with return, no such annexure is filed. 8. Shri Atul Choudhury, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 borrowed the arguments of Shri Khandekar. In addition, it is contended that separate seniority lists are maintained for Engineers in Civil formation and in Electrical formation. The post of Additional Housing Commissioner (Civil) is the highest post in cadre which should be treated as equivalent to Engineer-in-Chief in Public Works Department. The nature of work of present Board is related with Civil Engineering and, therefore, an Officer of Board must possess the qualification of Graduation in Civil Engineering. It is submitted that the cadre strength of Civil Engineers in Housing Board is 134 whereas the cadre strength of Electrical Branch is only 13. The stand of private respondent is that policy making is in the Province of the State Government/Board and in absence of any challenge to the Regulations, no interference is warranted by this Court. He relied on (2005) (5) MPHT 435 (S.S. Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another). Shri Atul Choudhury has also relied on Schedule appended to the Regulations. It is submitted that the post in question is not an administrative post as projected by the petitioner. The reliance is placed on the notification dated 07.12.1998, whereby the State Government has delegated its power to Board for the purpose of regulating certain conditions of service of Officers and Servants of the Board. It is submitted that the Rules applicable to the Public Works Department are not applicable in the present case. 9. Petitioner and respondent No. 5 have also filed written submissions in support of their contentions. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 11. Section 15 of the Adhiniyam reads as under: "15. It is submitted that the Rules applicable to the Public Works Department are not applicable in the present case. 9. Petitioner and respondent No. 5 have also filed written submissions in support of their contentions. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 11. Section 15 of the Adhiniyam reads as under: "15. Conditions of service of officers and servants.- 1. The remuneration and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of the Board appointed under Section 14 shall be such as may be determined by regulations. 2. Until regulations are made under Sub-section (1), the remunerations and conditions of service of officers and servants of the Board shall be governed by the rules, orders and instructions relating remuneration and conditions of service applicable to the officers and servants of the corresponding grade in the service of the State Government." [Emphasis supplied] 12. A plain reading of this provision makes it clear that the condition of service of Officers and Servants of the Board are required to be determined by way of Regulations. However, sub section (2) makes it clear that until Regulations are made under sub-section (1), the conditions of service applicable to the corresponding grade in the service of the Government Servants shall be applicable. Relevant portion of Section 103 reads as under: "103. Power to make regulations.- 1. The Board may, by notification, make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. 2. xxx xxx xxx xxx 3. No regulation or its cancellation or modification shall have effect until the same shall have been approved and confirmed by the State Government." 13. A conjoint reading of Section 15 and Section 103 makes it clear that Regulations means a valid and enforceable Regulations notified under the Act. Sub section (3) makes it clear that no Regulations can have effect until the same is approved and confirmed by the State Government. Sub section (3) of Section 103 begins with the negative word "No". This is trite law that another mode of showing a clear intention that the provision enacted is mandatory, is by clothing the command in a negative form. (See: Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh page 404, 12th Edition). Sub section (3) of Section 103 begins with the negative word "No". This is trite law that another mode of showing a clear intention that the provision enacted is mandatory, is by clothing the command in a negative form. (See: Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh page 404, 12th Edition). In the opinion of Crawford, "prohibitive or negative words can rarely, if ever, be directory". Subba Rao, J. in AIR 1961 SC 1107 (M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa) opined that "negative words are clearly prohibitory and are ordinarily used as a legislative device to make a statute imperative". Same view is taken by Supreme Court in 2003 (2) SCC 577 (Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal). 14. In the manner Section 103(3) is worded, Regulations can be made effective only when the same are approved and confirmed by the State Government. 15. It is profitable to mention here that in certain cases, the Apex Court held that draft Rules can be made applicable. In (1998) 4 SCC 65 (Abraham Jacob and others v. Union of India), the Apex Court held that administrative decision could be taken to make promotions according to the draft rules which were finalised later on. In Vimal Kumari (supra), the Apex Court held that draft rules can be applied in an emergent situation. In the said case, the draft rules were lying in nascent stage since 1983. The Apex Court in the said judgment has held as thus: "6. The Draft Rules were prepared in 1983 and since then they have not been enforced. It is, no doubt, open to the Government to regulate the service conditions of the employees for whom the Rules are made, by those Rules even in their "draft stage" provided there is clear intention on the part of the Government to enforce those Rules in the near future Recourse to such Draft Rules is permissible only for the interregnum to meet any emergent situation. But if the intention was not to enforce or notify the Rules at all, as is evident in the instant case, recourse to "Draft Rules" cannot be taken. But if the intention was not to enforce or notify the Rules at all, as is evident in the instant case, recourse to "Draft Rules" cannot be taken. Such Draft Rules cannot be treated to be Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution and cannot legally exclude the operation of any existing executive or administrative instruction on the subjects covered by the Draft Rules nor can such Draft Rules exclude the jurisdiction of the Government, or for that matter, any other authority, including the appointing authority, from issuing the executive instructions for regulating the conditions of service of the employees working under them. 7. In the instant case, as pointed out above, the Draft Rules were prepared in 1983. They have been lying in the nascent state since then. In the meantime, many promotions, including that of the appellant were made on the basis of 'seniority' which, in the absence of any Rule made under Article 309, could be legally adopted as the criteria for making promotion on the post of Superintendent could not have been displaced by the Draft Rules and the High Court could not have invoked any provision of those Draft Rules which had been lying frozen at their embryonic stage for more than ten years. 8. In the absence of any decision of the State Government that so long as the Draft Rules were not notified, the service conditions of the appellant or the respondent and their other colleagues would be regulated by the "Draft Rules" prepared in 1983, it was not open either to the Government or to any other authority, nor was it open to the High Court, while disposing of the writ petition, to invoke any of the provisions of those Rules particularly as the Government has not come out with any explanation why the Rules, thought prepared in 1983, have not been notified for the long period of more than a decade. The delay, or, rather inaction, is startling." [Emphasis supplied] 16. In 2009 (8) SCC 492 (Jantia Hill Truck Owners Association v. Shailang Area Coal Dealer and Truck Owner Association and others), the Apex Court held that although not very relevant, we may notice that this Court in Vimal Kumari v. State of Haryana has held that even the draft rules may be followed where no rules in accordance with the statutory provisions have been framed. (See also High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana). 17. In 2011 (9) SCC 645 (Chandigarh Administration v. Usha Kheterpal Waie and others), the Apex Court considered the judgment of Abraham Jacob and Vimal Kumari and has held as under: "17. In Abraham Jacob v. Union of India, this Court held that where draft rules have been made, an administrative decision taken to make promotions in accordance with the draft rules which were to be finalised later on, was valid. In Vimal Kumari v. State of Haryana, this Court held that it is open to the Government to regulate the service conditions of the employees for whom the rules were made even if they were in their draft stage, provided there is a clear intention on the part of the Government to enforce those Rules in the near future." 18. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the draft rules can be made applicable in certain circumstances. However, it is noteworthy that in none of said cases decided by the Supreme Court, there existed any such mandatory provision for giving effect to draft rules/Regulations like Section 103 of the present Adhiniyam. At the cost of repetition, in my view, Section 103 is mandatory in nature and unless requirement of Section 103 (3) is fulfilled, the Regulations cannot become effective. In view of legislative mandate embodied in Section 103(3), without approval and confirmation of Regulations, Regulations cannot become effective. During the course of hearing, on a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel for the employer fairly admitted that Regulations of 1992 have not been approved and confirmed by the State Government. It is settled in law that if a statue prescribes that a thing is to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden. (See (2001) 4 SCC 9 (Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka), (2002) 1 SCC 633 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala) and 2011 (2) MPLJ 690 (Satyanjay Tripathi and anr. v. Banarasi Devi). It is equally well settled that when language of statue is clear and unambiguous, it should be given effect to irrespective of it's consequence. (See (2001) 4 SCC 9 (Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka), (2002) 1 SCC 633 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala) and 2011 (2) MPLJ 690 (Satyanjay Tripathi and anr. v. Banarasi Devi). It is equally well settled that when language of statue is clear and unambiguous, it should be given effect to irrespective of it's consequence. Section 103 (3) of Adhiniyam, in no uncertain terms makes it clear that Regulation can become effective only when it is notified by the Board and approved and confirmed by the State Government. 19. In this case, it is admitted position that petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 5 as Deputy Commissioner. The stand of respondents is that as per Regulations, the petitioner is not eligible for consideration because he does not have the qualification of B.E (Civil). It is already held in this order that Regulation which prescribes eligible qualification of B.E (Civil) has not become effective. The Rules of 1991 and 1983 applicable to PWD only prescribes qualification of B.E without there being any further condition of subject expertise in a particular stream. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the Regulation of 1992 and post of Additional Commissioner is not equivalent to Chief Engineer of PWD. On perusal of the record, this contention is found to be incorrect. The petitioner has filed the DPC proceedings as Annexure P-23 with the rejoinder. The DPC proceedings make it clear as to which rules were made applicable. On perusal of the record, this contention is found to be incorrect. The petitioner has filed the DPC proceedings as Annexure P-23 with the rejoinder. The DPC proceedings make it clear as to which rules were made applicable. Relevant portion of DPC proceedings reproduced as under:- ^3- inksUufr gsrq iz;ksT; fu;e%& ,e0ih0 gkmflax cksMZ ds Js.kh 1 ,oa 2 ¼vf/kdkjh½ ds Hkjrh@inksUufr fu;e 1992 iqujhf{k 1998 e.My ds 144 osa lfEeyu fnukad 13-12-1999 esa ikfjr ladYi dzekad 2092&35@144&12@99 ds }kjk loZ lEefr ls vuqeksfnr fd;s x;s gSa rFkkfi bu ij 'kklu Lohd`fr visf{kr gSaA vr% e.My vf/kfu;e 1972 dh /kkjk 5@2 ds vuqlkj tc rd fd mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu fu;e u cuk fy;s tk;s rc rd e.My ds vf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk lsodksa ij ikfjJfed rFkk lsok 'krsZ jkT; 'kklu ljdkj dh lsok esa rRle Js.kh ds vf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk lsodksa dks ykxw mu fu;eksa@vkns'kksa rFkk vuqns'kksa ls 'kkflr gksxsa tks fd ikfjJfed rFkk lsok 'krksZa ls lacaf/kr gks rn~uqlkj tc rd e.My ds izLrkfor lsok Hkjrh fu;e jkT; 'kklu ls Lohd`r ugha gks tkrs rc rd jkT; 'kklu esa izpfyr lkekU; fu;eksa dk gh vuq'kj.k fd;k tk jgk gSA 4- e0i0 yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] izeq[k vfHk;Urk@eq[; vfHk;Urk Hkjrh rFkk lsok 'krZ] fu;e 1983 ;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1985 ds fu;e 6¼d½ mifu;e ¼,d½ ds vuqlkj] eq[; vfHk;Urk gkmflax cksMZ esa vij vk;qDr ds in ij inksUufr ds fy;s inksUufr lfefr ,sls leLr O;fDr;ksa ds ekeys ij fopkj djsxh ftUgksaus v/kh{k.k ;a=h gkmflax cksMZ esa mik;qDr ds in ij 05 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj yh gSA rn~uqlkj gkmflax cksMZ esa ,sls mik;qDr flfoy ftUgksaus fnukad tuojh 2009 dks mik;qDr ¼flfoy½ ds laoxZ esa 05 o"kZ dk vgZdkjh lsokdky iw.kZ dj fy;k gSa] mudh ofj"Brk lwph izLrqr gSA* (Emphasis Supplied) 20. A bare perusal of the aforesaid portion make it clear that while promoting officers, the respondents have applied the Rules of 1983 applicable to the PWD. The same finding is given by the DPC at page 29 of the rejoinder. The document dated 26/04/2014 (Annexure P-26) filed with rejoinder is also DPC proceedings. A bare perusal of the aforesaid portion make it clear that while promoting officers, the respondents have applied the Rules of 1983 applicable to the PWD. The same finding is given by the DPC at page 29 of the rejoinder. The document dated 26/04/2014 (Annexure P-26) filed with rejoinder is also DPC proceedings. Relevant portion of Clause 6 is reproduced as under:- 6- mik;qDr ¼fo|qr½ dk inksUufr gsrq vH;kosnu%& Jh ch0,y0 lksyadh mik;qDr ¼fo|qr½ ds }kjk vij vk;qDr ds in ij inksUufr gsrq vkosnu izLrqr fd;k gSA muds }kjk ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd gkmflax cksMZ esa Lo;a ds fu;e vuqeksfnr u gksus ls ,e0ih0ih0 MCY;w0Mh0 lsok HkrhZ fu;e 1969 ;Fkk la'kksf/kr 1991 dks fy;k tk jgk gSA mDr fu;e ds vuqlkj eq[; vfHk;ark e.My esa vij vk;qDr ds led{k ds in ij inksUufr gsrq ih0MCY;w0Mh0 esa v/kh{k.k ;a=h e.My esa mik;qDr ds led{k ds in ij ikWap o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus okys ik= gSaA e.My ds fofu;e vf/klwfpr u gksus ls mik;qDr ds in ij 5 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus dh ;ksX;rk gh i;kZIr gS] blfy;s flfoy ds vfrfjDr mik;qDr ¼fo|qr½ Hkh leku :i ls fopkj.kh; gSA mDr laca/k esa oLrqfLFkfr ;g gS fd e.My ds izLrkfor HkrhZ fu;e 1992 ;Fkkla'kks/ku 1998 e.My ds 144 osa lfEeyu fnukad 13-12-1999 }kjk iqujhf{kr djrs gq;s dk;kZy;hu i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr fofu;e 'kklu ls vuqeksfnr ugha gSa] fdUrq e.My ladYi }kjk vuqeksfnr gksus ds dkj.k blh vk/kkj ij izFke ,oa f}rh; Js.kh dh inksUufr;kWa dh tkrh jgh gS rFkk ;g fofu;e o"kZ 1998 ls izpyu esa gSA (Emphasis Supplied) The relevant portion of the DPC proceedings aforesaid makes it clear that for the purpose of promotion, the respondents have repeatedly applied the Rules applicable to PWD and Regulations of 1992 are not approved and confirmed by the State Government. 21. Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 placed reliance on MP Housing & Infructure Development Board Regulations, 1998. By placing reliance on the Regulation 3, it is urged that Regulations have been notified, approved and confirmed by the State Government. However these Regulations of 1998 do not deal with promotion from the post of Deputy Commissioner to Additional Commissioner. By placing reliance on the Regulation 3, it is urged that Regulations have been notified, approved and confirmed by the State Government. However these Regulations of 1998 do not deal with promotion from the post of Deputy Commissioner to Additional Commissioner. The minute reading of Regulation 3 on which heavy reliance is placed, makes it clear that certain provisions applicable to State Government employees were borrowed and it was made clear that such borrowed provisions should not be inconsistent with the Regulations of 1998. On perusal of Regulations of 1998, I am unable to hold that this covers the criteria of promotion in question. Needless to mention that Section 103(3) contains the mandate flowing from the parent act. Unless that legislative mandate is complied with in its entirety, Regulation of 1992 cannot be made effective. 22. In Vimal Kumari (supra) the Supreme Court disapproved the action of the department in taking recourse of the draft rule which were prepared in 1983 and did not get approval from the government. The draft rules which do not receive stamp of approval from the Government for more than a decade was disapproved by the Supreme Court. The delay and inaction of the Government was held to be startling. Same is position here in the instant case, wherein Regulations of 1992 did not receive stamp of approval from the Government till date. 23. As analysed above, Regulations cannot be made applicable and promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner has to be made on the basis of Rules made applicable to PWD. As per Rules of PWD, the only qualification required for promotion is degree of Bachelor in Engineering. No stream is specified/prescribed under the said Rules. In (2004) 13 SCC 604 (S.C. Pandey v. State of M.P. and others), the Apex Court considered the questions whether for the post of Chief Engineer, the respondent No. 1 therein is eligible for consideration, who was Superintendent Engineer (E & M). After considering the relevant Rules, the Apex Court held that all the superintendent engineers working in PWD were to be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, of course if they were found fit. After considering the relevant Rules, the Apex Court held that all the superintendent engineers working in PWD were to be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, of course if they were found fit. The contention that respondent No. 1 being Superintendent Engineer (E & M) did not have the qualification of engineering degree in civil could not be promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, cannot be countenanced so long as Rules are clear as stated above. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has a valuable right of consideration for promotion on the post of Additional Commissioner as per Rules applicable to the PWD. It goes without saying that petitioner can be promoted if he is found eligible and suitable in all respect as per Rules applicable to the PWD. It will not be out of place to mention that as per combined reading of section 15 and section 103 of Adhiniyam the rules applicable to PWD shall be applicable for the purpose of promotion in question. For the foregoing reasons, the judgments cited by Shri Khandekar and Shri Atul Choudhary cannot be pressed into service. The said judgments are based on different factual scenario and in those cases there was no legislative mandate like section 15 and section 103 of Adhiniyam. 24. Consequently, the respondents are directed to include the name of the petitioner in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Additional Housing Commissioner and consider his case for promotion from due date in accordance with law. If the DPC for other eligible employees has already been taken place, then a review DPC be convened to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the said post. If petitioner is found fit for promotion in all respect, he be given promotion on notional basis with retrospective effect i.e. from the date when his contemporaries were promoted. If he is found fit, he shall be given benefit of notional fixation of pay and notional seniority on the promotional post. If petitioner is not found fit by DPC, the respondents shall communicate the outcome to the petitioner. Petition is allowed. No cost.