Statutory appointment power remains valid without framed rules, allowing administrative promotions under the parent Trust Act.

Where a Trust Act confers general power of appointment and promotion on a statutory Trust Board, the absence of State-framed rules for posts requiring professional skill does not disable the Board from acting by administrative decision or resolution. The Court held that the Act's scheme, including the State Government's supervisory control, did not make appointments void merely because rules under the relevant provision had not yet been framed. On that basis, promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer were sustained as valid in law, and the order quashing them was set aside. The direction requiring the State Government to frame rules was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in the absence of rules framed by the State Government under the Trust Act, the Trust Board could validly make appointments and promotions to posts requiring professional skill by administrative decision or resolution; (ii) whether the appointments/promotion of the private respondents to the post of Assistant Engineer could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether, in the absence of rules framed by the State Government under the Trust Act, the Trust Board could validly make appointments and promotions to posts requiring professional skill by administrative decision or resolution.

Analysis: Section 21 contemplated rules by the State Government prescribing conditions for appointments to offices requiring professional skill, but the Act also vested general power of appointment and promotion in the Trust under Section 22. The scheme of the Act, including the State Government's control under Sections 24(c) and 25, did not support the view that the absence of rules disabled the Board from acting at all. In service jurisprudence, where no statutory rules exist, administrative instructions or decisions operate in the field. The earlier notification under Section 89(1)(c) also indicated that the Trust's power under Section 22 remained effective for posts other than those specifically controlled.

Conclusion: The Trust Board was competent to make appointments and promotions by administrative decision or resolution even though no rules had been framed under Section 21.

Issue (ii): Whether the appointments/promotion of the private respondents to the post of Assistant Engineer could be sustained.

Analysis: Since the Board had acted within its competence under the Act and the State Government had not issued any contrary direction, the promotions could not be invalidated merely because rules under Section 21 had not been framed. The High Court's view that all such appointments were invalid for want of rules was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The appointments of the private respondents as Assistant Engineer were valid in law and the quashing order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The Board's power to appoint and promote under the Act remained operative until the State Government framed rules, while the direction requiring the State Government to frame rules was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of statutory service rules, a statutory Board vested with general appointing and promoting power may validly act through administrative decisions or resolutions, subject to the controlling framework of the parent Act and the supervisory power of the State Government.

---