(1) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the High court of Bombay at Nagpur dated 15/04/1981 quashing the appellantS promo- tion to the post of Engineering Supervisor.

(2) THE appellant and respondents 2 to 4 have been employed as Junior Engineers in the service of Nagpur Improvement Trust. The appellant was promoted to the post of Engineering Supervisor on 28/06/1976 on the footing that the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste employees of the Trust. Respondents 2 to 4 filed a writ petition before the High court challenging the validity of the appellantS promotion on the ground that on the date of the appellantS promotion the Improve- ment Trust had not adopted reservation policy declared by the State Government, as such the appellant could not be promoted in preference to respondents 2 to 4. The High court held that since the Nagpur Improvement Trust had not adopted the reservation policy declared by the State government prior to 1979 the appellantS promotion to the post of Engineering Supervisor was illegal. There is no dispute that the reservation policy declared by the State government was adopted by the Nagpur Improvement Trust on 24/05/1979, soon thereafter promo- tions have been made in accordance with the reservation policy. The High court further held that service conditions of the employees of the Improvement Trust had been determined by the Almelkar Board and since there was no provision for reservation for promotion in that award employees of the Improvement Trust were not entitled to the benefit of reservation policy unless the award was modified.

(3) LEARNED counsel for the appellant urged that in view of Article 16(4 of the Constitution and further in view of the decision of the State Government declaring the policy of reservation in all government ser- vices, the Improvement Trust was bound to follow the reservation policy, and the appellantS promotion was in accordance with the said declared policy. We are not inclined to accept this submission as the Improvement Trust being an autonomous body had not adopted the policy laid down by the government prior to 1979 but it adopted the said reservation policy on 24/05/1979. Therefore no employee of the Trust was entitled to avail of the benefits of reservation policy prior to 24/05/1979. We therefore agree with the High court that the appellantS promotion made in 1976 was illegal,

(4) LEARNED counsel urged that orders issued under Article 16(4 will override statutory rules regulating the conditions of service for promo- tion, he placed reliance on a full bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High court in Kanwal Parkash v. State of Punjab. No doubt the Full bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High court supports the appellantS contention but we do not consider it necessary in the facts of this case to determine the question. We leave the question open to be decided in an appropriate case.

(5) LEARNED counsel then assailed the High courtS view that the reservation policy could not be applied even after 1979 in view of the award. We do not find merit in this submission. Almelkar Award had been given under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act revising the pay scales and the channel of promotion of the employees of the Trust. The award did not lay down other conditions of service of the employees of the Trust. We find that the chart annexed to the award, a copy of which has been filed on the record, indicates the existing pay scales and the revised pay scales as determined by the award are specified at entry 19 which relates to the Engineering Supervisor. In the remarks column there is an observation that the post may be filled from existing scale according to seniority-cum-merit but this remark is made with reference to the registers of the Trust. This indicates that the authority making the award did not decide the question of promotion instead it made reference to the existing provisions contained in the