The directions issued by the State Government regarding reservation in promotion have the force of law and will prevail by virtue of Section 3(7) of the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994.

( 1 ) THESE petitions raise common question of law and being grounded on same set of facts were taken up together for convenient disposal by a common judgment. The petitioners of Writ petition No. 41634 of 1999 who are Senior Assistant Engineers belonging to the Electrical and mechanical cadre of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board)have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, and not to extend the benefit of reservation in promotion for officers belonging to Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes to the posts of Executive Engineer. Promotion of Mewa Lal (SC) from the post of Superintending Engineer to the post of Chief engineer vide order dated 30. 10. 1999 (Annexure-1) to Writ Petition No. 46973 of 1999 is sought to be quashed on the ground that he has been illegally given the benefit of reservation in a post to be filled by promotion under the Service Regulations on the basis of merit.

( 2 ) WE have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, senior advocate representing the petitioners, Sri R. P. Goyal, Advocate-General assisted by Sri S. P. Mehrotra counsel appearing for the respondents and Sri Ram Singh, appearing for beneficiaries of reservation in promotion.

( 3 ) SRI Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised two submissions : first, that Article 16 (4) of the Constitution does not comprehend reservation in promotion as laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhneys case and clause (4a) inserted in Article 16 of the Constitution w. e. f. 17. 6. 1995 by virtue of the Constitution (Seventy Seventh Amendment)Act, 1995 being prospective in operation cannot save sub-section (7) of Section 3 of the Uttar pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes and other backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1994) ; and secondly, that the directions issued by the State Government providing therein that Electricity board would make general reservation in favour of the members of the Scheduled Caste in accordance with the orders of the State Government issued, from time to time, on the subject of representation of Scheduled Castes in services in the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment and by promotion are unconstitutional and void besides being not binding on the U. P. State electricity Board or its successor Corporations, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation limited ; the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited ; and the Uttar Pradesh Jal viddut Nigam Limited inasmuch as the directions so issued prior to 17. 6. 1995 were not covered by Article 16 (4) and the subsequent Government Orders on the issue are not comprehended by section 78a of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, sub-section (1) of which provides that in the discharge of its functions, the Board shall be guided by such directions on question of policy as may be given to it by the State Government. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the state Government cannot issue any direction under Section 78a of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 regulating appointment of officers and employees of the Board. Learned counsel submitted that appointment of officers and employees the manner of their appointments are not the functions in respect of which the State Government could issue directions under Section 78a of the Act.

( 4 ) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the issues involved herein. In Indra Sawhneys case the Supreme Court has held that Article 16 (4) of the Constitution does not permit reservation in the matter of promotion. The law in this regard as laid down in Rangacharis case air 1962 SC 36, has been reversed. But the Supreme Court, while deciding Indra Sawhneys case, has held that its decision on the question would operat