(1) THESE applications for directions by the State Electricity Board . apear to be wholly misconceived. The adinterim order dated 15/09/1990 which left undisturbed the pronotions already made, was an interim order and it came to an end with the dismissal of the appeals being C.A.Nos. 2006-10/86 by the courts order dated February 18, 1986 as being infructuous. The court expressed no opinion as to the validity or otherwise of the quote rule since all the petitioners in the writ petition before the High court had . n the meanwhile been promoted as Junior Engineers and all legal contentions kept open. This question came up for consideration in the subsequent decision of this court in Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma 1986(4) SCC 617, which lays down that the fixation of a quote as between diplomaholders and non - diplomaholders Line Superintendents for purposes of promotion, who were integrated into a common cadre by the State Electricity Board, was wholly arbitrary and irrational and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Such being the legal position, we find no justification for the State Electricity Board expressing its doubt