Article 12 broadens to statutory bodies, and similarly placed employees must receive equal consideration for promotion.

The employee remained governed by the earlier service conditions because the Board had provisionally taken the employees at its disposal without framing new grades or altered conditions, and employees similarly placed had been treated as permanent and promoted; he was therefore entitled to equal consideration for promotion. The expression "other authorities" in Article 12 was held to be of wide amplitude and not confined by ejusdem generis, covering statutory bodies vested with public powers. As the Board was created by statute, exercised public control and issued enforceable directions, it fell within Article 12 and was subject to Part III, including Articles 14 and 16.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the employee was entitled to be considered for promotion by the Board on the same footing as similarly placed employees, and (ii) whether the Board was "State" or "other authority" within Article 12 of the Constitution so as to attract enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16.

Issue (i): whether the employee was entitled to be considered for promotion by the Board on the same footing as similarly placed employees

Analysis: The employee and the other Foremen had been placed at the disposal of the Board provisionally, and no new grades or service conditions were framed by the Board as contemplated by the governing notification. The material on record showed that the employee was treated by the Government and the Board as belonging to the Board service and as being on deputation elsewhere when posted to the Public Works Department. Since the Board had treated similarly placed employees as its permanent employees and had promoted them, the employee remained governed by the earlier service conditions and was entitled to equal consideration for promotion.

Conclusion: The employee was entitled to be considered for promotion by the Board on the same footing as the other similarly placed employees.

Issue (ii): whether the Board was "State" or "other authority" within Article 12 of the Constitution so as to attract enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16

Analysis: The expression "other authorities" in Article 12 was held not to be controlled by ejusdem generis, because the named bodies in Article 12 did not form a single genus. The term was construed broadly to include statutory or constitutional authorities on whom law confers power to act in a public or quasi-governmental field. The Board, though engaged in commercial activity, was created by statute, exercised powers of public control, could issue enforceable directions, and functioned as an authority within the territory of India. It therefore fell within Article 12.

Conclusion: The Board was "State" or "other authority" within Article 12 and was subject to Part III of the Constitution.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the promotion claim and to the constitutional status of the Board failed, and the dismissal of the appeal followed from the employee's entitlement to equal treatment and the Board's amenability to fundamental rights review.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "other authorities" in Article 12 is of wide amplitude and includes statutory bodies invested with public powers, and employees similarly placed under an unaltered service regime are entitled to equal consideration for promotion under Articles 14 and 16.

---