JUDGMENT

THOMMEN, J.:— This appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 in a suit for mandatory injunction. The appellants are officers of Nandganj Sihori Sugar Co. Ltd., Rae Bareli, of which the third defendant, the U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (the second respondent herein) is the holding company. The State of Uttar Pradesh (the third respondent) is the fourth defendant. The plaintiff, Badri Nath Dixit (the first respondent), instituted the suit for mandatory injunction to enforce a contract alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2 for appointment of the plaintiff to the post of Instrumentation Foreman in the defendants company, and for consequential reliefs. The plaintiff contended that he had been sponsored by the Chairman and Managing Director of the third defendant, by his letters dated 18 October, 1982 and 14 December, 1982, for appointment by defendants 1 & 2 as an Apprentice Engineer in terms of a scheme formulated by the Government of India, but such appointment was not made by defendants 1 & 2. The plaintiff prayed for an injunction compelling defendants 1 & 2 to appoint him to the post of Instrumentation Foreman, which post, according to him, was at the time of the suit lying vacant. In effect, what the plaintiff seeks is a decree to compel the specific performance of a contract of personal service.

2. Defendants 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement denying the allegations. They stated that there was no contract, as alleged, and there was no vacancy for any post to which the plaintiff was qualified to be appointed. They further stated that the plaintiff had been conditionally offered appointment as a Fitter Trade Apprentice, subject to his possessing the requisite qualifications and his selection by the Apprentice Board, Kanpur. The plaintiff was not qualified and was, therefore, not selected. They further contended that neither as an Apprentice nor as Instrumentation Foreman was the plaintiff qualified to be appointed. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. However, on appeal by the plaintiff it was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge whodirected defendant 1 to appoint the plaintiff to the post of Apprentice Engineer under the scheme sponsored by the Government of India. This decree was confirmed in appeal by the High Court by the impugned judgment. The High Court further held that the plaintiff was entitled to be appointed to the post of Instrumentation Foreman with effect from the date on which the former incumbent of that post had resigned.

3. Counsel for the appellants (defendants 1 & 2) submits that there is no evidence of the alleged contract having been entered into by the defendants with the plaintiff., nor is there any evidence of a scheme of the G overnment of India which entitled the plaintiff to be appointed to any post in the defendants company. Counsel states that, in any view, the plaintiff was not qualified for appointment as an Apprentice and much less to the higher post of Instrumentation Foreman.

4. The plaintiffs counsel, however: submits that the letters addressed by the third defendant in his capacity as Chairman and Managing Director of the holding company to defendants 1 & 2, the officers of the subsidiary company, made it obligatory on the part of the latter to appoint the plaintiff in terms of the Government of India scheme. It was so found by the first Appellate Court and the High Court. That finding is not liable to be impeached in the present proceeding. He says that the defendants are, therefore, liable to be compelled by means of a mandatory injunction to honour the offer held out by them to the plaintiff, who is entitled to enforce the contract founded on such offer by seeking specific performance of it.

5. We are surprised that the first Appellate Court and the High Court should have proceeded on the assumption that any enforceable contract existed. Neither from the plaint nor from the evidence is it possible to identify any concluded co