By the Court.—Heard Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Manish Goyal, advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

These three writ petitions have been filed by one and same person. All these writ petitions have been clubbed together and are being decided by means of the common judgment.

2. The petitioner before this Court is employed as Architecture cum Planning Assistant, in New Okhala Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as NOIDA).

By means of writ petition No. 57577 of 2008, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the advertisement dated 17.7.2008 in so far as it pertains to the post of Associate Town Planner, be filled by way of direct recruitment. He further prays that his claim for promotion on the post of Associate Town Planner/Associate Architect be considered in accordance with the Board’s resolution dated 24.2.1996 taken in its 85th Boarding Meeting by virtue of petitioner’s being senior most Architectural cum Planning Assistant having a degree in Architecture and registered as Architect with the Council of Architecture notwithstanding the provisions of Recruitment and Promotion Policy, 2005.

3. By means of writ petition No. 65973 of 2008, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the resolution of NOIDA dated 24.11.2008 qua items No. 15 of Supplementary Agenda. He has further prayed that the post of Associate Architect/Associate Town Planner be filled by promotion from amongst the senior most Architect cum Planning Assistant holding necessary qualifications.

4. By means of third writ petition No. 22155 of 2011, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned resolution dated 29.3.2011 passed in 172 Board Meeting of NOIDA (Annexure 28 to the writ petition) and a mandamus commanding the NOIDA to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Architect Act 1972 and not to appoint any person as Architect or Associate Architect/Associate Town Planner who is not registered as an Architect with the Council of Architecture in accordance with Architect Act, 1972. It has further been prayed that that the authority may be asked to make promotion on the post of Associate Town Planner and Associate Architect on the basis of 100% promotion from those who possess a degree in Architecture Town Planning based on report of C.T.C.P. as per the Policy and Service Rules of U.P. Town and Country Planning Department and Greater NOIDA. By means of prayer No. 4, the petitioner has prayed for promotion being considered from the date of eligibility of the candidate.

5. An amendment application has also been filed in writ petition No. 22155 of 2011 whereunder the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the promotion and recruitment policy of 2005 in so far as it permits promotion quota of 60% on the post of Associate Town Planner and to be filled without insisting upon a degree in Architecture as essential qualification and to strike down provision of promotion on the post of Town Planner in planning cadre in so far as it fixes the feeding cadre as Associate Town Planner.

6. The facts which are more or less common to these writ petition are as follows :

The petitioner before this Court is working as Architectural cum Planning Assistant in NOIDA since January, 1988. He claims to be possessed of a degree of Architect from Indian Institute of Architects and is also registered as Architect with the Council of Architecture. His name is mentioned as such in the register maintained for the purpose. It is petitioner’s case that NOIDA has framed Service Regulations 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations 1981) with the previous approval of the State Government in respect of its employees. A copy of which is enclosed at page No. 96 of the third writ petition. These service regulations have been framed in exercise of powers under Section 19 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 with the approval of the Government of the Uttar Pr