JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner in WPS No. 6178/2019 and Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners in WPS No. 10875/2019, Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 1/State as well as Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2 and 3/Chhattisgarh Housing Board and Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents No. 4, 5, 7 to 11 in WPS No. 10875/2019. 2. The petitioner in WPS No. 6178/2019 was appointed as Assistant on 22.06.2010 in respondent No. 2, Chhattisgarh Housing Board (for short, the Board), established under the Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 (for short, the Act of 1972) and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 18.09.2019. He is presently posted at Division Office at Durg and is also discharging duties as incharge Divisional Accountant. 3. The petitioner No.1 in WPS No.10875/2019 was also appointed as Assistant by order dated 23.08.1994 and the petitioners No. 2 to 4 were appointed as Assistant by order dated 09.08.1995. By order dated 03.12.2014, they were promoted as Senior Assistants. 4. In WPS No. 6178/2019, it is pleaded that in exercise of powers conferred under Section 17 and Section 103 of the Act of 1972, the Board framed the Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Service (Recruitment) Regulations, 2011 (for short, the Regulation of 2011) and that the same had come into force on 16.02.2012. However, in WPS No. 10875/2019, it is stated that the same was notified on 16.01.2012. In the return filed by the respondents No. 4, 5, 7 to 11 in WPS No. 10875/2018, it is stated that the Regulations of 2011 had come into existence with effect from 16.02.2012. 5. Perusal of the notification goes to show that the same was issued on 16.01.2012 and clause 1(2) of the Regulation of 2011 states that the regulations shall come into force from the date of publication in the official gazette. The Regulations of 2011 was published on 08.06.2012, and therefore, it appears that the Regulation of 2011 had come into force on 08.06.2012. 6. The Regulations of 2011 was published on 08.06.2012, and therefore, it appears that the Regulation of 2011 had come into force on 08.06.2012. 6. It is pleaded in both the writ petitions that according to Regulation of 2011, the post of Accountant (Lekhapal) is to be filled up 100% by way of promotion from the post of Senior Assistant in terms of Schedule II, Serial No. 26. It is pleaded that on the ground of non-availability of qualified employees to fill up the posts of Accountant, in a meeting held on 19.06.2014, the respondent No. 2 resolved to amend the Regulation of 2011 by proposing to fill up 50% of the posts by way of direct recruitment, instead of 100% appointment by way of promotion. The recommendations were forwarded to respondent No. 1 for approval. Approval was accorded for amendment of the Regulation of 2011 and a notification incorporating the amendment was published in the gazette on 04.02.2015. The approval was accorded by the Under Secretary to the Housing & Environment and not by the State Government as required under Regulation of 2011 as the same was not issued by and in the name of the Governor in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that under Section 2(41) of the Chhattisgarh General Clauses Act, 1957 (for short, the Act of 1957) State Government means Governor of the State of Chhattisgarh. 7. In WPS No. 6178/2019, prayer is made for quashing the consent dated 04.02.2015 and the notification dated 04.02.2015. 8. In WPS No. 10875/2019, it is further pleaded that an advertisement dated 15.02.2018 was issued for direct recruitment for 11 posts of Accountant and that after publication of the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners came to learn about the amendment made in the Regulation of 2011 and accordingly, had submitted various representations on 19.02.2018, 07.09.2018 and 18.11.2019. 9. In WPS No. 10875/2019, amongst others, a prayer is made to set aside the amendment notification dated 04.02.2015, the advertisement dated 15.02.2018 and the order of appointment of the respondents No. 4 to 11, dated 04.10.2018. 10. In WPS No. 6178/2019, the respondent No. 1 as well as respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their respective affidavits. In the affidavit of respondent No. 1, it is stated that there are 22 sanctioned posts of Accountant. 10. In WPS No. 6178/2019, the respondent No. 1 as well as respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their respective affidavits. In the affidavit of respondent No. 1, it is stated that there are 22 sanctioned posts of Accountant. However, it is noticed by the Court that Schedule I of the Regulation of 2011, as placed on record by the petitioner, shows that there are 16 posts of Accountant (Lekhapal). May be, by subsequent amendment of Schedule I, number of posts had been increased from 16 to 22. It is further stated that the State Government permitted the respondent No. 3 to fill up 50% of the posts i.e. 11 posts of Accountant by direct recruitment with a condition that no grant would be given by the State Government for these posts. Accordingly, advertisement dated 15.02.2018 was issued and in that recruitment process, 10 candidates were selected and they are working as Accountants. However, 01 post of Accountant was not filled up in compliance of an order dated 03.08.2018 passed by this Court in WPS No. 4987/2018. Out of 10 direct recruit Accountants, 02 left the job and resultantly, 08 employees are working in the post of Accountant. It is also stated that out of 11 posts to be filled up by promotion from Senior Assistants, 8 posts had been filled up but in absence of suitable candidates in reserved category, 3 posts are lying vacant. It is also stated that one promotee Accountant had in the meantime superannuated. 11. The respondents No. 2 and 3 adopted the reply filed by the respondent No. 1. 12. A common rejoinder-affidavit to the returns of the State as well as the Board is filed by the petitioner in WPS No. 6178/2019. 13. In WPS No. 10875/2019, a return is filed by the State to which a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioners. A return has been filed by the Executive Engineer of the Board, purportedly on behalf of respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 to 11 in WPS No. 10875/2019 are the candidates selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.02.2018, and evidently, the same cannot be an affidavit of respondent No. 4. It appears that the said return is filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. the Commissioner and the Administrative Officer of the Board. The respondent No. 4 to 11 in WPS No. 10875/2019 are the candidates selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.02.2018, and evidently, the same cannot be an affidavit of respondent No. 4. It appears that the said return is filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. the Commissioner and the Administrative Officer of the Board. In the said return, it is stated that during pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Accountant on 28.12.2019, and petitioners No. 2 to 4 were promoted on the post of Accountant on 01.02.2020. 14. The respondents No. 4, 5, 7 to 11 had filed reply. A rejoinder had also been filed by the petitioners, however, without mentioning the rejoinder is in response to which reply. 15. Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPS No. 6178/2019 submits that the impugned order of consent and approval dated 04.02.2015 having not been issued by and in the name of the Governor as required under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, and the same having been issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, such an order cannot be considered to be a confirmation, consent or approval of the State Government, which is required for modification of any Regulation in terms of Section 17 or Section 103(3) of the Act of 1972, and as such, the amendment effected, which is under challenge in the writ petition, is not an amendment in the eye of law and therefore, the consent/approval/confirmation dated 04.02.2015 and the amendment to Schedule II at serial No. 26 amending the existing provision of appointment to the post of Accountant by 100% promotion to one of 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion, is liable to be set aside and quashed. Mr. Dixit places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Others v. Kripalu Shankar & Others, reported in (1987) 3 SCC 34 and Jaipur Development Authority & Others v. Vijay Kumar Data & Another, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 94 . 16. Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPS No. 10875/2019, while adopting the submissions of Mr. 16. Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPS No. 10875/2019, while adopting the submissions of Mr. Dixit, further submits that as the amendment had been effected without due approval and confirmation from the State Government, the advertisement dated 15.02.2018 and the orders of appointment of respondents No. 4 to 11 are liable to be interfered with. He places reliance in Jaipur Development Authority & Others (supra), and State of Uttaranchal & Another v. Sunil Kumar Vaish & Others, reported in (2011) 8 SCC 670 , MRF Ltd. v. Manohar Parrikar & Others, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 374 , and a decision of this Court in Rungta College of Engineering & Technology, Bhilai & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, reported in MANU/CG/0139/2012 : (2012) 5 MPHT 59. 17. Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that the resolution of the 44th Board Meeting dated 12.08.2014 was approved by the State Government and a letter to that effect was issued on 04.02.2015. Based on the approval/confirmation given, the Regulation of 2011 had been amended by the Board by way of publication in the gazette dated 04.02.2015. Approval for filling up of 10 posts of Estate Manager/Branch Officer and 11 posts of Accountant by way of direct recruitment was also granted by order dated 30.12.2015 providing that no grant would be given by the State Government and accordingly, the advertisement dated 15.02.2018 was issued. He has submitted that recommendation for amendment submitted by the Board was approved by the Minister of the Department and he has also produced before the Court the note sheet relating to confirmation/approval of the recommendation. 18. He has submitted that the plea taken by the petitioners that the impugned approval/confirmation order and the consequent amendment dated 04.02.2015 was passed in violation of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, is without any merit. It is submitted that under the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution and the Work Allotment Rules, issued by the General Administration Department, the Under Secretary is empowered to communicate an order. It is submitted that under the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution and the Work Allotment Rules, issued by the General Administration Department, the Under Secretary is empowered to communicate an order. He places reliance on decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dattatraya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. State of Bombay & Others, reported in AIR 1952 SC 181 , State of Punjab & Another v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, reported in (2009) 17 SCC 92 , and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 333 ). 19. Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the Board and Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents No. 4, 5, 7 to 11 in WPS No. 10875/2019, have adopted the submissions of Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate. It is also submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the writ petitions challenging the advertisement having been filed after completion of the recruitment process, in any event, no case is made out for setting aside the advertisement and the appointments made pursuant thereto. 20. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 21. Schedule I of the Regulation of 2011 shows that there are 16 posts of Accountant (Serial No. 28), which is a Class III post, 3 posts of Branch Officer (Shakha Adhikari) (Serial No. 21) and 10 posts of Estate Manager (Serial No. 22), which are Class II posts. Serial No. 26 of Schedule II indicates that 16 posts of Accountant are to be filled up 100% by promotion. As per Schedule IV of the Regulation of 2011, the post of Estate Manager/Branch Officer at Serial No. 14 is to be filled up from the post of Accountant having 5 years of service, whereas, the post of Accountant/Auditor, which finds place at serial No. 18, is to be filled up from the Senior Assistant/Assistant Estate Manager, having 5 years of service and having passed the Departmental Accounts Examination (DAE). Schedule II, at serial No. 20 provides that 13 posts of Estate Manager/Branch Officer is to be filled up 100% by promotion. 22. It will be relevant to note that Section 2(41) of the Act of 1957 states that “State of Chhattisgarh” or “the State” means the State of Chhattisgarh specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution. Schedule II, at serial No. 20 provides that 13 posts of Estate Manager/Branch Officer is to be filled up 100% by promotion. 22. It will be relevant to note that Section 2(41) of the Act of 1957 states that “State of Chhattisgarh” or “the State” means the State of Chhattisgarh specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution. Section 2(42) states that “State Government” or “Government” means the Government of the State of Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that State Government means the Governor is palpably wrong. 23. The Act of 1972 was enacted by the legislature of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the same has been adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh. 24. Section 17 of the Act of 1972 reads as under: “17. Regulations. -Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board shall, with the previous approval of the State Government, make regulations - (a) fixing the salary and allowances of the officers and servants of the Board; (b) fixing the amount and nature of security to be furnished by any officer or servant from whom it may be deemed expedient to require security; (c) for regulating the grant of leave of absence, leave, allowances, and acting allowances to the officers and servants of the Board; Provided that a servant of the Central or State Government employed as an officer or servant of the Board shall not be entitled to leave or leave allowances, otherwise than as laid down in the conditions of his service under the Central or State Government, as the case may be, relating to transfer to foreign service; (d) for regulating the subscriptions to the provident fund established under section 18 and other matters relating thereto; (e) for determining the conditions under which the officers and servants or any of them shall on retirement receive gratuities or compassionate allowances and the amount of such gratuities and compassionate allowance. 25. It is seen that under Section 17 of the Act of 1972, previous approval of the State Government is required to make regulations with regard to the subject matters as specified therein. 26. Section 103 of the Act of 1972 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. 26. Section 103 of the Act of 1972 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) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for – (a) all matters expressly required or allowed by this Act, to be prescribed by regulations; (b) the appointment of persons to be members of committees under section 23; (c) the procedure to be followed by a committee at its meeting; (d) the creation of posts and delegation of powers and duties of the Board to the Chairman, the Housing Commissioner, any other officer or Committee of the Board; (e) the duties and conduct of officers and servants of the Board and of other persons employed by the Board under this Act for carrying out any of the purposes of this Act; (f) the welfare and recreation of the staff of the Board and the contributions to be made therefor; (g) the fees payable for the copies of documents, estimates and plans furnished by any of its officers and servants under this Act; (h) the management, use and regulation of dwellings constructed under any housing scheme; (i) the efficient conduct of the affairs of the Board. (3) No regulation or its cancellation or modification shall have effect until the same shall have been approved and confirmed by the State Government.” 27. Section 103 of the Act of 1972 empowers the Board to make by notification, regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act including the regulations that are specified under Section 103(2) of the Act of 1972. Sub-section 3 of Section 103 of the Act of 1972 provides that no regulation or its cancellation or modification shall have effect unless the same have been approved and confirmed by the State Government. 28. The relevant translated version of the order dated 04.02.2015 (wrongly hand written at Annexure P/3 as 04.02.2018) reads as follows: “To, The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur. Subject: With reference to direct recruitment on the post of Estate Manager/Branch Officer and Accountant in the Chhattisgarh Housing Board. Reference: Your memo No. 5601/A.A./Mukhya./FA.6001/14, dated 07.10.2015. 28. The relevant translated version of the order dated 04.02.2015 (wrongly hand written at Annexure P/3 as 04.02.2018) reads as follows: “To, The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur. Subject: With reference to direct recruitment on the post of Estate Manager/Branch Officer and Accountant in the Chhattisgarh Housing Board. Reference: Your memo No. 5601/A.A./Mukhya./FA.6001/14, dated 07.10.2015. --00-- Kindly peruse the above referred memo on the subject. As per the proposal of the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, approval is granted for amendment in the Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Service (Recruitment) Regulations, 2011. Sd/- Illegible (G.L.Sankla) Under Secretary” 29. In the aforesaid letter, date “07.10.2015” against the reference is wrongly written and it should have been 07.10.2014, as would be amply demonstrated by Annexure R/3 of the reply of the respondent No. 1 in WPS No. 6178/2019. 30. The sole question for consideration is whether the aforesaid letter can be construed to be an approval/confirmation/consent of the State Government for amendment of the Regulation of 2011 on the ground that the same has not been expressed in name of the Governor. 31. Article 166 of the Constitution provides for the conduct of Government business. It is useful to quote this Article: "166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State.- (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. (2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. (3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion." 32. It will be appropriate now to take note of the decisions cited at the bar. 33. It will be appropriate now to take note of the decisions cited at the bar. 33. In Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar (supra), Hon’ble Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das observed that the decision of the appropriate Government to confirm the detention order was communicated to the District Magistrate by a confidential letter signed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Home Department. It was noted that under Rule 12 of the Rules of Business made by the Government of Bombay under Article 166 the Constitution, the Assistant Secretary was authorized to sign orders and instrument of the Government of Bombay. An argument was advanced that no valid order of confirmation was made in proper legal form at all and that a confidential communication from the Home Department to the District Magistrate cannot be regarded as an order under section 11(1)of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (for short, the Act of 1950). It was observed that Section 11 (1) of the Act of 1950 required an executive decision as to whether the detention order should or should not be confirmed. But the Act is silent as to the form in which the executive decision, whether it is described as an order or an executive action, is to be taken. No particular form is prescribed by the Act at all and the requirements of the Act will be fully satisfied if it can be shown that the executive decision has in fact been taken. It was held that every executive decision need not be formally expressed and this is particularly so when one superior officer directs his subordinate to act or forbear from acting in a particular way, but when the executive decision affects an outsider or is required to be officially notified or to be communicated it should normally be expressed in the form mentioned in Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India i.e., in the name of the Governor. It was held that generally speaking the provisions of a statute creating public duties are directory and those conferring private rights are imperative. It was held that generally speaking the provisions of a statute creating public duties are directory and those conferring private rights are imperative. When the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would not promote the main object of the legislature, it has been the practice of the Courts to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them not affecting the validity of the acts done. Strict compliance with the requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution gives an immunity to the order and that it cannot be challenged on the ground that it is not an order made by the Governor. If, therefore, the requirements of that article are not complied with, the resulting immunity cannot be claimed by the State. This, however, does not vitiate the order itself. Observing so, it was held that while the Act of 1950 requires an executive decision, whether it is called an order or an executive action, for the confirmation of an order of detention under section 11 (1) the Act of 1950, does not itself prescribe any particular form of expression of that executive decision but omission to comply with the provision of Article 166 of the Constitution does not render the executive action a nullity. It was laid down that all that the procedure established by law requires is that the appropriate Government must take a decision as to whether the detention order should be confirmed or not under section 11 (1) of the Act of 1950. It having been established from the materials on record that such a decision was taken by the appropriate Government, the writ petition was dismissed. Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, Chief Justice, agreed with the judgment of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das. 34. By the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Justice B.K.Mukherjea also, the writ petition was dismissed. Hon’ble Justice N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar concurred with the view taken. 35. Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, Chief Justice, agreed with the judgment of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das. 34. By the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Justice B.K.Mukherjea also, the writ petition was dismissed. Hon’ble Justice N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar concurred with the view taken. 35. Dealing with the question relating to the order of confirmation not being expressed to be made in the name of the Governor, it was observed by Hon’ble Justice Mukherjea that Article 166(1) of the Constitution is confined to the cases where the executive action requires to be expressed in the shape of a formal order or notification or any other instrument. It was observed that Article 166(1) does not lay down how an executive action of the Government of a State is to be performed; it only prescribes the mode in which such act is to be expressed. The manner of expression is ordinarily a matter of form, but whether a rigid compliance with a form is essential to the validity of an act or not depends upon the intention of the legislature. It was held that clauses (1) and (2) of Article 166 of the Constitution are to be read together. While clause (1) relates to the mode of expression of an executive order or instrument, clause (2) lays down the way in which such order is to be authenticated; and when both these forms are complied with, an order or instrument would be immune from challenge in a court of law on the ground that it has not been made or executed by the Governor of the State. Non-compliance with the provisions of either of the clauses would lead to the result that the order in question would lose the protection which it would otherwise enjoy, had the proper mode for expression and authentication been adopted. It was held that the order is not a nullity even though it has not been expressed to be made in the name of the Governor. 36. It needs to be mentioned at this juncture that there is a minority opinion expressed by Hon’ble Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan. 37. It was held that the order is not a nullity even though it has not been expressed to be made in the name of the Governor. 36. It needs to be mentioned at this juncture that there is a minority opinion expressed by Hon’ble Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan. 37. In Kripalu Shankar & Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in the context of Article 166 of the Constitution that the functioning of the Government in a State is governed by Article 166 of the Constitution which lays down that there shall be a council of ministers with the Chief Minister at the head, to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions except where he is required to exercise his functions under the Constitution, in his discretion. Article 166 provides for the conduct of Government business. 38. In Kripalu Shankar & Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that Article 166(1) requires that all executive action of the State Government shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. This clause relates to cases where the executive action has to be expressed in the shape of a formal order or notification. It prescribes the mode in which an executive action has to be expressed. Noting by an official in the departmental file will not, therefore, come within this Article nor even noting by a Minister. Every executive decision need not be as laid down under Article 166(1) but when it takes the form of an order it has to comply with Article 166(1). Article 166(2) states that orders and other instruments made and executed under Article 166(1), shall be authenticated in the manner prescribed. While clause (1) relates to the mode of expression, clause (2) lays down the manner in which the order is to be authenticated and clause (3) relates to the making of the rules by the Governor for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government. It was also observed that notings in a notes file do not have behind them the sanction of law as an effective order. 39. It was also observed that notings in a notes file do not have behind them the sanction of law as an effective order. 39. In Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the event it appears from the order and the records produced before the court, if any occasion arises therefore that even if a valid order is not authenticated in terms of clause (2) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the same would not be vitiated in law. Failure to authenticate an executive order is not fatal. The said provision is directory in nature and not mandatory. 40. In MRF Ltd. (supra), referring to Chitralekha and Others v. State of Mysore, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1823 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 166(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India are only directory and not mandatory in character. It was also held that the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution which are framed for convenient transaction of the Government, has to be transacted in a just and fit manner in keeping with the said Business Rules and as per the requirement of Article 154 of the Constitution. It was further held that the Rules of Business framed under the Provisions of Article 166 (3) of the Constitution are mandatory and must be strictly adhered. Any decision by the Government in breach of these Rules will be a nullity in the eyes of law. 41. In Sunil Kumar Vaish & Others (supra), amongst others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that unless an order is expressed in the name of the Governor and it is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order on behalf of the Governor. 42. In Jaipur Development Authority & Others (supra), reiterating the decision in Kripalu Shankar & Others (supra), it is stated that unless an order is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order made on behalf of the Government. 42. In Jaipur Development Authority & Others (supra), reiterating the decision in Kripalu Shankar & Others (supra), it is stated that unless an order is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order made on behalf of the Government. The aforesaid observations were made in the context of a letter dated 06.12.2021 which was neither expressed in the name of the Governor nor was it authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules and that the letter merely indicated the discussion made by the Committee and the decision taken by the Committee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that by no stretch of imagination, the same can be treated as a policy decision of the Government within the meaning of Article 166 of the Constitution. 43. In Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra), it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the decision of any Minister or officer under the Rules of Business made under Articles 77(3) and 166(3) of the Constitution is the decision of the President or the Governor, respectively, and these articles do not provide for ‘delegation’. That is to say, that decisions made and actions taken by the Minister or officer under the Rules of Business cannot be treated as exercise of delegated power in real sense, but are deemed to be the actions of the President or Governor, as the case may be, that are taken or done by them on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. It was further held that the requirements of the Rules of Business must be complied with in order to give validity to the action or decision taken. 44. While noticing that a Two-Judge Bench in MRF Ltd. (supra) had taken a view that provisions of Article 166(3) is mandatory whereas another Two-Judge Bench in Crawford Bayley & Co. It was further held that the requirements of the Rules of Business must be complied with in order to give validity to the action or decision taken. 44. While noticing that a Two-Judge Bench in MRF Ltd. (supra) had taken a view that provisions of Article 166(3) is mandatory whereas another Two-Judge Bench in Crawford Bayley & Co. v. Union of India, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 25 , had accepted that the Rules of Business framed under Article 77 of the Constitution are directory and not mandatory, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken note of the judgment in R.Chitralekha (supra) and observed that MRF Ltd. (supra) was distinguishable on facts as that case dealt with rules pertaining to financial implications for which there were no provisions in the Appropriation Act, and so the rules required mandatory compliance. 45. This Court, in Rungta College of Engineering & Technology, Bhilai & Others (supra), while dealing with the Chhattisgarh Engineering Snatak Pravesh Niyam, 2012 (for short, the Rules of 2012), observed that the Rules of 2012 was signed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Technical Education and the same being not duly authenticated in the name of the Governor as mandated under Article 166(2) of the Constitution, the same cannot be held to be a valid statutory rule. 46. Perusal of the judgments noted above would go to show that every executive decision need not be formally expressed, but when an executive decision affects an outsider or is required to be officially notified or communicated, it should be expressed in the name of the Governor. When there is compliance of the requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution, the same gives an immunity to the order to the extent that it cannot be challenged on the ground that it is not an order made by the Governor. Omission to comply with the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution does not render an executive action a nullity. 47. The Act of 1972 is silent as to the form in which the executive decision of approval/confirmation is to be accorded. 48. Grant of approval/confirmation under Section 17 and/or under Section 103(3) of the Act of 1972 is to be communicated to the Board for enabling it to take further action in the matter of amendment of the Regulation. Such communication does not affect any outsider. 48. Grant of approval/confirmation under Section 17 and/or under Section 103(3) of the Act of 1972 is to be communicated to the Board for enabling it to take further action in the matter of amendment of the Regulation. Such communication does not affect any outsider. At any rate, even if it is assumed that the communication dated 04.02.2015 granting approval/confirmation of the proposal of the Board for amendment of the Regulation of 2011 was required to be issued by and in the name of the Governor, failure to do so would not be fatal if materials on record demonstrate that, indeed, a decision was taken in that regard by the State Government. 49. It would be relevant, in that context, to examine the note sheet leading to grant of approval/confirmation. 50. The note-sheet put up by the Under Secretary on 20.01.2015 is in Hindi. The translated version would be as follows: “The Chhattisgarh Housing Board has sent a proposal for amendment in the Service (Recruitment) Regulations for filling up 50 posts of Estate Manager/Branch Officer by direct recruitment on 07.10.2014. The Chief Accounts Officer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board was directed to remain present for discussion on the above proposal on 28.10.2014. Mr. Sonwani, Chief Accounts Officer was present on 19.01.2015 for discussion. 2. According to Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Service (Recruitment) Regulations, 2011, there is a provision to fill up 100% posts of Estate Manager/Branch Officer by promotion and in the same manner, there is a provision to fill 100% posts of Accountant by promotion. According to the proposal of the Board, out of the said posts, if 50% of the posts are filled by direct recruitment, then the chances of the employees/officers of the Board will be affected and there may be dissatisfaction amongst the employees. 3. Therefore, the Board may be advised that if eligible employees/officers are not available for filling up the posts by promotion, then these posts may be considered for filling up on contract/deputation. For orders. Sd/- Illegible 20.01.2015 (G.L.Sankla) Under Secretary Joint Secretary Sd/- Illegible 21.01.2015 Secretary The proposal of the Housing Board is approvable. Sd/- Illegible 22.01.2015 A.C.S. Sd/- Illegible 22.01.2015 Approved Hon’ble Minister Housing/Environment Sd/- Illegible 22.1.2015 A.C.S.(H&E) Sec (H&E) Sd/- Illegible 28.01.2015” 51. A perusal of the above goes to show that the signatory of the letter dated 04.02.2015 had expressed an opinion not to accept the proposal of the Board. Sd/- Illegible 22.01.2015 A.C.S. Sd/- Illegible 22.01.2015 Approved Hon’ble Minister Housing/Environment Sd/- Illegible 22.1.2015 A.C.S.(H&E) Sec (H&E) Sd/- Illegible 28.01.2015” 51. A perusal of the above goes to show that the signatory of the letter dated 04.02.2015 had expressed an opinion not to accept the proposal of the Board. The Secretary of the Board, however, approved the proposal, which was endorsed by the Additional Chief Secretary and finally approved by the Minister, Housing/Environment. 52. Part V of the Rules of Business of the Chhattisgarh reads as under: “A-PROCEDURE OF SECRETARIES 2. Subject to the Rules of Business, and the practice of the Department and any general or special order of the Chief Minister or the Minister-in-charge a Secretary may dispose of cases of routine nature and those in which either no question of policy is involved or the question of policy has been settled. Explanation. - For the purpose of this instruction “Secretary” includes :- (i) The Chief Secretary, an Additional Chief Secretary, a Principal Secretary, a Secretary or an Additional Secretary, and; (ii) Director Budget Co-ordination and Resources Analysis or a Deputy Secretary or an Under Secretary who may be assigned these powers by any of the Secretaries mentioned in (i) above. 2A. Notwithstanding anything contained in instruction No.2 but subject to the Rules of Business, any particular item of business allocated to a department may be disposed of - (i) By the Secretary of the Department concerned if the Chief Minister or the Minister-in-charge so directs; OR (ii) By the Chief Secretary or Additional Chief Secretary or Special Secretary or any other Secretary, if the Chief Minister so directs; and the disposal by such Secretary shall be deemed to be disposal by Government.” 53. Perusal of the above goes to show that a Secretary may dispose of cases of routine nature and those in which either no question of policy is involved or the question of policy is settled, disposal by such Secretary shall be deemed to be the disposal by the Government. In the instant case, the decision to grant approval/confirmation was made by the Departmental Minister and therefore, it cannot be argued that no decision was taken by the State Government in the matter of grant of approval/confirmation of the proposal of the Board for amendment of Regulation of 2011. In the instant case, the decision to grant approval/confirmation was made by the Departmental Minister and therefore, it cannot be argued that no decision was taken by the State Government in the matter of grant of approval/confirmation of the proposal of the Board for amendment of Regulation of 2011. Such a matter is also not a matter under Rule 7 of the Business Rules which is to be placed before the Council of Ministers. 54. The English translation of clause 7 of the Karya (Abantan) Niyam of the Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, (Annexure R/8 in WPS No. 6178/2019) reads as under: “Except those cases where an officer has been empowered to sign any order or instrument of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, then each such order or instrument shall be signed either by the Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, all Secretaries, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary and on such signing it should be understood that the order or instrument is authenticated in a proper way.” 55. The above Clause 7 goes to show that an Under Secretary is competent to sign an instrument or order and on such signing, it is to be understood that the order or document is authenticated in a proper way. 56. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the contention that the proposal of the Board for amendment of Regulation of 2011 was not approved/confirmed by the State Government. In view of the above determination, there is no illegality in advertisement dated 15.02.2018 assailed in WPS No. 10875/2019 after appointment orders were issued to respondents No. 4 to 11, as the advertisement was assailed on the ground that there was no approval of the State Government for amending the Regulation of 2011 on the basis of which the impugned advertisement was issued. 57. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.