Page No.# 1/45 GAHC010100012025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2653/2025 TIRTHA NATH HAZARIKA S/O LATE THANESWAR HAZARIKA, R/O VILL- NARAGAON, P.O.- NARAGAON, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787052 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY -CUM- JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT -CUM- MEMBER OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES ASSAM MEEN BHAWAN BIRUBARI GUWAHATI-1 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA, MR K KASHYAB,MR. B BORAH,MR. K KALITA Page No.# 2/45 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FISHERY, MR. P SHARMAH, SC, FISHERY Linked Case : WP(C)/2421/2025 SRI KULADHAR DEKA AND 4 ORS S/O. LATE PRASANNA DEKA R/O. GEETANAGAR P.O. BAMUNI MAIDAM DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN- 781021. 2: MD. MAHBUBUR RAHMAN S/O. MOHAMMAD ALI R/O. COLLEGE ROAD NEAR APOLLO ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL NATHPARA KHALILPUR (PART) P.O. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783325. 3: MD. ABDIDAR HUSSAIN SIDDIQUEE S/O. LATE ABUBAKKAR SIDDIQUE R/O. VILL. AND P.O. HAHCHARA GAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782126. 4: SRI JYOTI PRABHAT DUARAH S/O. GOPAL CHANDRA DOWERAH R/O. PRATISTHA ENCLAVE FLAT NO. 7/E BLOCK A KANDURA MIKIR PATH LALMATI BARSAJAI P.O. BASISTHA GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP(M) Page No.# 3/45 PIN- 781029. 5: SRI APURBA BHUYAN S/O. LATE GUNA BHUYAN R/O. BHIRGAON (BISWANATH CHARIALI) PANI BHARAL CHARIALI P.O. PANIBHARAL DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM PIN- 784176. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6. 2:THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE REP. BY IT'S MEMBER SECRETARY-CUM- JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES ASSAM MEEN BHAWAN BIRUBARI GUWAHATI- 16. ------------ Advocate for : MR. I H SAIKIA Advocate for : SC FISHERY appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS Page No.# 4/45 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. I.H. Saikia Advocate for the respondents : Mr. P. Sarmah, SC, Fishery Date on which judgment is reserved : 12.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Judgment and Order (CAV) Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Standing Counsel, Fishery Department. 2] Both these writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law and are interconnected. They are, therefore, taken up together for hearing and disposal. 3] In WP(C) No.2421/2025, the petitioners are serving as Fishery Development Officer. At the time of their initial appointment, they were Page No.# 5/45 governed by the Assam Fishery Service (Recruitment and Promotion) Orders 1989, as there were no Statutory Rules governing the service. The petitioners were qualified for promotion to the next higher post of Sub-Divisional Fishery Development Officer as they have completed the minimum qualifying service of three years of continuous services in the cadre of Fisheries Extension Officer. The authorities concerned, however, did not consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Fishery Development Officer though they completed the requisite three years of continuous service. Their cases for promotion were considered only in the year 2023 and they were promoted pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC to the post of Sub- Divisional Fishery Development Officer, vide notification dated 30.01.2023. The Government of Assam thereafter enacted the Assam Fisheries and Aquaculture Service Rules, 2024 laying down the service conditions of the employees of the said Department. Under Rule 5(2) of the said Rules of 2024, the post of District Fisheries Development Officer was to be filled up by promotion from amongst the eligible Sub-Divisional Fisheries Development Officer as per the gradation list. Under the Rules of 2024, the qualifying period of service for promotion to the post of District Fisheries Development Officer is 5(five) years of continuous service as Sub-Divisional Fisheries Development Officer or 10 years of continuous service in different cadres under the Department. According to the petitioners, they have been completed more than 16 years of service and they have the requisite qualification. Therefore, they are qualified for being promoted to the next higher post of District Fisheries Development Officer on the date of publication of the Rules of 2024. 4] In response to a query from the Government of Assam to the Fisheries Page No.# 6/45 Department in respect of filling up of promotional posts in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officer, the Director vide the communication dated 07.03.2024 submitted only the existing vacancies showing as many as 10(ten) number of vacant posts in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officer. According to the petitioners, under the Rules of 2024, the DPC shall consider and recommend the eligible candidates for filling up promotional posts in the next 12 months and the number of anticipated vacancies is also required to be taken into account. According to the petitioners, there are as many as 6 numbers of vacant posts in the cadre of Deputy Director of Fisheries which are likely to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of the District Fisheries Development Officer and therefore, there were 6 anticipated vacancies in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officer. That apart one existing incumbent was promoted from the post of Deputy Director of Fisheries to the post of Joint Director of Fisheries and therefore, the anticipated vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Director of Fisheries had risen to 7 and consequently, the anticipated vacancy would also be available in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officer taking the number of vacancies including anticipated vacancies in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officer that was 17. However, the DPC for promotion to the various cadres which was held on 15.03.2024 considered only 10 number of vacancies in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officer and pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC, only 7 posts were filled up by promotion vide notification dated 09.10.2024 instead of 17 posts. It is submitted that since the DPC did not consider 17 vacancies, the cases of the petitioners were not considered for being promoted to the post of District Fisheries Development Officer along with their batchmates. Therefore, they seek a direction from the Court for holding a Page No.# 7/45 review DPC to consider the remaining 10 number of vacant posts by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion w.e.f. 09.10.2024. 5] Subsequently, on requisitions being made on the status of the vacancies from the department, the Director of Fisheries submitted that the vacancies purportedly under his disposal in the various cadres which were meant to be filled up by promotion. In the said communication, the Director of Fisheries left out the anticipated vacancies and only 7 vacancies in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officers were shown to be vacant leaving behind the anticipated vacant posts, if the anticipated vacancies have been taken into account the total vacancy position in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officer would have been 11. 6] Thereafter, another DPC was held on 09.04.2025 for considering the cases for promotion to the post of different cadres under the Department of Fisheries including the post of District Fisheries Development Officer. In the said DPC, only 7 (seven) vacancies in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officers were taken into consideration for promotion, while the anticipated vacancies were not considered. Had the anticipated vacancies also been taken into account, the total number of vacancies available for promotion would have been 11 (eleven). However, the DPC rejected the cases of the petitioners on the ground that they did not complete 5 years of service in the cadre of Sub- Divisional Fisheries Development Officers. It is the case of the petitioners that till date the impugned rejection had not been communicated to the petitioners. In the gradation list which was prepared on 07.04.2025, the petitioners were placed at Serial No.2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 respectively. It is also contended on behalf Page No.# 8/45 of the petitioners that several posts of District Fisheries Development Officers are lying vacant and that the services of some of the petitioners are being utilised by assigning them the duties of In-charge District Fisheries Development Officers, without extending to them the regular financial benefits attached to the said posts, notwithstanding the fact that the said posts are required to be filled up on a regular basis through the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Being aggrieved, the writ petition being WP(C) No.2421/2025 has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to promote the petitioners against the posts of District Fisheries Development Officers. 7] In so far as WP(C) No.2653/2025 is concerned, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is serving in the cadre of District Fishery Development Officer and he is not promoted to the next higher post. According to the writ petitioner, the qualifying service period for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Fisheries is 3 (three) years as District Fisheries Development Officers or 12 (twelve) years of continuous service in different cadres under the Department. The petitioners having completed about 31 (thirty one) years of service in the Department, he has the requisite qualification for being considered for promotion to the next higher post of Deputy Director of Fisheries. By communication dated 07.03.2024, the Director has shown 6 (six) numbers of vacant posts in the cadre of Deputy Director of Fisheries which is available for being filled up by way of promotion. According to the petitioner, the cadre strength of Deputy Director of Fisheries is 7 (seven) and 6 (six) posts were already lying vacant and the incumbent in the remaining one post of Deputy Director of Fisheries who was also sought to be promoted to the next higher post of Joint Director of Fisheries, therefore, there was one more anticipated Page No.# 9/45 vacancy in the cadre of Deputy Director of Fisheries taking the total number of vacancies to be 7 (seven) which is to be filled up by promotion as per the gradation list. 8] Thereafter, the DPC for promotion was held on 15.03.2024, where only 6(six) numbers of vacancies were considered and pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC, only 3 (three) posts were filled up by promotion. According to the petitioners, since the remaining vacancies were not filled up, the case of the petitioner was not considered and he was not promoted. Subsequently, in response to a communication from the Fisheries Department, the Director of Fisheries by communication dated 29.10.2024 again submitted the vacancy position in various cadres which were likely to be filled up by promotion. This time 4(four) vacancies were shown in the cadre of Deputy Director of Fisheries. The gradation list was prepared on 07.04.2025, wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1. Pursuant thereto, the Government proceeded to fill up the vacant post on the basis of the DPC held on 15.03.2024. Being placed at the top of the gradation list, the petitioner would have been entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Fisheries and, consequently, there was a reasonable likelihood that, upon occurrence of subsequent vacancies in the next higher cadre of Joint Director of Fisheries, the petitioner would also have been considered for promotion to the said post. According to the petitioner the DPC was held on 09.04.2025 and however, the DPC rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he did not complete three years of service in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officer however, the said communication rejecting the eligibility of the petitioner has never been communicated to the petitioner. Being aggrieved Page No.# 10/45 the writ petition being WP(C) No.2653/2025 has been filed praying for setting aside and quashing the DPC minutes held on 09.04.2025 and for a further direction to the respondents for holding the review DPC for considering the cases of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Fisheries with retrospective effect from 09.10.2024. 9] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2024, particularly Rule 11(1)(b) and 11(1)(c), for the promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Fisheries the requirement of service is minimum period of 3 years in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officer or Lecturer, Regional Fishery Training Institute (RFTI), Amranga or District Fisheries Development Officer or Special Officer (Planning) or Superintendent of Fisheries (Training) or Marketing Officer (Fisheries) or Fisheries Information Officer at least for a minimum period of 3(three) years or with 12 (twelve) years of continuous service experience in different cadres of service on the 1st January of the year of promotion. 10] In so far as the qualification for the post of District Fisheries Development Officer the incumbent will have to render service in the cadre of Sub-Divisional Fisheries Development Officer or Research Assistant (Fisheries) post for a minimum period of 5 (five) years or have to render 10 (ten) years of continuous service in the different cadres of the service on the 1st day of January of the year of promotion. 11] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the mandate of the Rules, the petitioner who is seeking promotion to the post of Page No.# 11/45 Deputy Director of Fisheries have rendered more than 31 years of service and he therefore, satisfies the requirement under Rule 11(1)(b) that he completed the minimum 12 years of continuous experience in different cadres of the Department. Therefore, his claim for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Director of Fisheries could not have been rejected by the DPC solely on the ground that he does not fulfill the requirement of 3 years of continuous service in the post of District Fisheries Development Officer or other similar posts of equal rank. 12] The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in so far as the petitioners seeking promotion to the post of District Fisheries Development Officer, they also satisfy the requirement of Rule 11(1)(c) in as much as they have rendered more than 10 (ten) years of continuous service in different cadres of the service on the 1st day of January of the year of promotion and therefore, they also ought to have been considered for promotion to the next higher post of District Fisheries Development Officer. 13] During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the minutes held on 09.04.2025 which was available before the Court submits that the DPC which was constituted to consider the cases for promotion of various posts in the Fisheries Department including the promotion from the post of Sub-Divisional Fisheries Development Officer to District Fisheries Development Officer and promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Fisheries from the post of District Fisheries Development Officer, the DPC instead selected the candidates who were put up for due selection and recommendation and did not consider the cases of the incumbents therein Page No.# 12/45 including the writ petitioners but rather concluded the meeting by recommending that the rule be examined appropriately to reflect a consistent and logical coherent standard ensuring that both the cadre specific and total service experiences are properly aligned. 14] The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore, submits that the DPC is only required to recommend the candidates for promotion to the vacancies under consideration. Instead of that the DPC recommended the rule be amended and thereby the DPC did not proceed for recommendation of any of the candidates including the writ petitioners. As a consequence the petitioners lost a valuable opportunity of being considered for promotion to the next higher posts as claimed. It is submitted that on the date when the DPC had held its meeting which is 09.04.2025, all the petitioners had fulfilled the eligibility criteria under the rules for being considered for promotion to the next higher post. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' right for being considered for promotion is a valuable constitutional right from which they cannot be deprived of and the authorities were duty bound in law to consider their eligibility for promotion in terms of the rules which had existed during the time when the vacancies for promotion were under consideration. 15] The respondents have contested the matter by filing their affidavit in opposition and disputed the claims of the petitioners that they were entitled for any financial benefits of a higher post for which they were required to hold as In-charge in terms of Fundamental Rule 49(C) as the said rule does not permit any financial benefits for a Government Officer who is holding charge of a higher post. According to the respondents, the claim for promotion is not a Page No.# 13/45 matter of right and there was an anomaly which was noticed by the authorities during the holding of the meeting of the Selection Committee on 09.04.2025 and upon careful examination as well as in consultation with the personal department a recommendation was made for amendment of the Rules and which has subsequently been amended. The respondents maintained that the petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility requirement relating to the prescribed length of service in the feeder category and was therefore, not considered for promotion. The respondents contended that there was no arbitrariness or illegality or denial of any justice in conducting the promotion process. The petitioners having not satisfied the eligibility conditions relating to service in the feeder category no promotion was given effect to. In the said affidavit, the notification dated 09.12.2024 was enclosed, which reflects that the Assam Fisheries and Aquaculture Service Rules stood amended by the said notification and by the said notification the recruitment into the services were altered to the effect of 95% by way of direct recruitment and 5% by way of promotion to the various posts. Further, the Rules 11 sub-rule (1) a new provision that is “Clause (e)” was inserted which mandated that for promotion to the cadre of Fisheries Development Officer, the incumbent shall have to render at least 10 years of continuous service in the cadre of Assistant Fishery Officer on the 1st day of January of the year of promotion. For promotion to the post of Fisheries Development Officer, they shall also have to complete 9 months of training in the Fisheries Training Institute, Joysagar/Guwahati or in any other training institute sponsored by the Government of India. These amended rules are given effect from the date of their publication in the official gazette. Subsequently, a further amendment was brought into the Rule 11 and the eligibility criteria for the various posts were altered. Page No.# 14/45 16] The stand reflected in the affidavit of the respondents is similar in both the writ petitions. 17] The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. 18] At the outset, it is necessary to refer to the relevant rules. The Rule 11 under the Rules of 2024 is extracted below: “11. All the vacancies shall be filled by promotion: (1) Subject to suitability as may be decided by the Board and by the Appointing Authority a member of the Service shall be eligible for promotion to the next higher cadre, if he possess the qualification and experiences as set forth below:- (a) for promotion to the cadre of Joint Director of Fisheries, an Officer shall have to render service in the cadre of Deputy Director of Fisheries or Deputy Director Fisheries (Research), for a minimum period of 1 (one) year or to render 15 (fifteen) years of continuous service in different cadres of the service on the first day of January of the year of promotion; (b) for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Director of Fisheries, an Officer shall have to render service in the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officer (DFDO) or Lecturer, Regional Fishery Training Institute (RFTI), Amranga or District Fisheries Development Officer or Special Officer (Planning) or Superintendent of Fisheries (Training) or Marketing Officer (Fisheries) or Fisheries Information Officer at least for a minimum period of 3 (three) years or with 12 (twelve) years of continuous service experience in different cadres of the service on the first January of the year of promotion; (c) for promotion to the cadre of District Fisheries Development Officer, an Officer shall have to render service in the cadre of Sub-Divisional Fisheries Development Officer or Page No.# 15/45 Research Assistant (Fisheries) post for a minimum period of 5 (five) years or have to render 10 (ten) years of continuous service in the different cadres of the service on the first day of January of the year of promotion; (d) for promotion to the cadre of Sub-Divisional Fisheries Development Officer or an Officer shall have to render service in the cadre of Fisheries Development Officer or Fisheries Development Officer (Information) or Fisheries Development Officer (Marketing) or Fisheries Development Officer (Instruction) or Fisheries Officer for at least for period of 6 (six years on the first January of the year of promotion. For promotion to the cadre of Sub-Divisional Fisheries Development Officer, an officer shall be required to have the degree of Bachelor of Fisheries Science (B.F.Sc.) from any institute recognized by Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Provided that the officers who are already in service having B.Sc (Zoology), the requisite qualification for promotion shall be Bachelor in Science (B.Sc) in Zoology with one year Post Graduate (PG) training in Fisheries Science in Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute (CIFRI), Guwahati or Central Institute of Fisheries Education (CIFE), Mumbai or any other equivalent training from any institution recognized under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). 2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if any senior member in any cadre is found not to be qualified for promotion by the Board, the post shall be filled up by the junior officer from the gradation list without prejudice to the seniority.” 19] This rule subsequently came to be amended by notification dated 09.12.2024, whereby the following provision was inserted after Rule-11(1)(d). The new provision reads as under: “3. In the principal Rules 11, in sub-rule (1), after clause (d), following new clause shall be inserted, namely:- Page No.# 16/45 "(e) (i) "For promotion to the cadre of Fisheries Development Officer, the incumbent shall have to render at least 10 years of continuous service in the cadre of Assistant Fishery Officer on the first day of January of the year of promotion. (ii) For promotion to the post of Fisheries Development Officer, Assistant Fishery Officer shall have to complete 9 months of training in Fisheries Training Institute, Joysagar/Guwahati or in any other Training institute sponsored by Government of India" 20] There was a subsequent amendment whereby the following amendments were also brought into effect in the said rules by notification dated 12.02.2026. These amendments read as under: “v) after clause (d), following new clause shall be inserted, namely:- "(e) (i) for promotion to the cadre of Fisheries Development Officer, the incumbent shall have to render at least 10 years of continuous service in the cadre of Assistant Fishery Officer on the first day of January of the year of promotion; (ii) for promotion to the post of Fisheries Development Officer, an Assistant Fishery Officer shall have to complete 9 months of training in Fisheries Training Institute, Joysagar/Guwahati or in any other Training institute sponsored by Government of India; Provided that the Officer shall be required to complete Compulsory certification on Public Procurement (MOOC)." 21] The basic grievance of the writ petitioners is that their cases ought to have been considered in terms of the pre-amended Rules as the vacancies which had arisen prior to the pre-amended Rules are to be filled up by the pre- amended Rules. Page No.# 17/45 22] The question as to whether vacancies that arose prior to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled in accordance with the pre-amendment Rules, or in accordance with the Rules in force at the time when such vacancies are sought to be filled by the State, is an issue that has been considered time and again by the Apex Court. 23] In Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao [(1983) 3 SCC 284], the Apex Court, on the facts and circumstances of that case held that vacancies which had arisen prior to the amendment of the Rules were required to be governed by the Rules then in force and not by the amended Rules. The question that arose for consideration in Rangaiah (supra) pertained to the mandatory obligation under the old Rules to prepare an approved list of candidates and the number of candidates required to be included therein with reference to the vacancies available. It was in that particular context that the Apex Court held that the vacancies would be governed by the Rules prevailing at the time when such vacancies arose. Subsequently, several judgments have relied upon the principle laid down in Rangaiah (supra), while in a number of other decisions, the Apex Court has distinguished or departed from the ratio laid down therein. 24] These judgments have been elaborately considered and discussed by the Apex Court in its recent decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, [(2023) 3 SCC 773]. Since the question as to whether the principle laid down in Rangaiah (supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case falls for determination by this Court, it is necessary to extensively refer the discussions of the Apex Court rendered in Raj Kumar (supra). The relevant paragraphs of this judgment are extracted below: Page No.# 18/45 “29. The first case which followed Rangaiah is P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P. The Court was concerned about recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer governed by the Special Rules. The question that arose for consideration was whether the vacancies arising in the category of Assistant Engineers before the amendment to the Special Rules were to be considered as per the amended or the unamended Rules. Having considered Explanation (c) and the proviso of the Special Rules which used the expression "vacancies arising in the category", the Court concluded that the intendment of the amended rule itself is to fill vacancies based on the rules that existed prior to the amendment of the rules. This is a case that turned on the wording of the amended rule itself. 30. The Court observed as under: (P. Ganeshwar Rao case, SCC p. 745, para 7) "7. ... The only question which has now to be considered is whether the amendment made on 28-4-1980 to the Special Rules applied only to the vacancies that arose after the date on which the amendment came into force or whether it applied to the vacancies which had arisen before the said date also. The crucial words in the Explanation which were introduced by way of amendment in the Special Rules on 28-4-1980 were ‘37½% of the substantive vacancies arising in the category of Assistant Engineers shall be filled by the direct recruitment'. If the above clause had read '37½% of the substantive vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineers shall be filled by the direct recruitment' perhaps there would not have been much room for discussion. The said clause then would have applied even to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of the amendment but which had not been filled up before that date. We feel that there is much force in the submission made on behalf of the appellants and the State Government that the introduction of the word "arising" in the above clause made it applicable only to those vacancies which came into existence subsequent to the date of amendment." Page No.# 19/45 31. The decision, in this case, is based on the position of the amended rule. Even in this case, the Court has not identified any general principle of vested right of a public servant to be considered for vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. Without any analysis, the Court observed that the principle as laid down in Rangaiah is applicable and proceeded with the interpretation of the new Rules. 32. N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, is a case concerning appointment to the post of Tahsildar, a selection post governed under the 1975 Rules, to be filled from in-service candidates. While the advertisement was issued in May 1975, the procedure for selection of candidates by following the rules of reservation in favour of SC/ST candidates was brought into force on 9-7-1975. The Court held that as the advertisement expressly stated that the selection shall be made in accordance with the existing rules, the candidates who have appeared in the written test and have undergone viva voce acquired a vested right for being considered for selection in terms of the advertisement. The Court held that, as the rules have no retrospective effect, the recruitment process cannot be affected. It is in this context, that the Court referred to Rangaiah and P. Ganeshwar Rao. The Court also relied on Calton which was related to the appointment for the post of Principal under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and Mahendran case which was related to the recruitment process for direct appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. Changes made to the rules after the issuance of the advertisement was the question under consideration. 33. The Court observed: (N.T. Devin Katti case, SCC p. 165, para 11) "11. There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing rules or government orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such Page No.# 20/45 a case must be made in accordance with the then existing rules and government orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has the right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication; if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended Rules are retrospective in nature.' (emphasis supplied) 34. This case concerns appointment to the post pursuant to an advertisement Page No.# 21/45 prescribing certain qualifications. Candidates who have applied on the basis of such qualifications have a right to be considered on the basis of the advertisement and such a right cannot be taken away without making a retrospective amendment to rules is the ratio of this case. The issue involved in this case is different from the one confronting us. The case does not throw much light on the issue involved in the present case. 35. In State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal, selection for 9 existing vacancies which were to be filled by the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Building and Roads Branch) Rules, 1954 was in question. In a short order, relying on Rangaiah, this Court observed that vacancies existing prior to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled in accordance with the law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose. It was held: (R. Dayal case33, SCC pp. 422-23, paras 6 & 8) "6. As a consequence, any appointment made as on that date should be consistent with the above Rule. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao. 8. Therefore, it is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that while selecting officers, minimum requisite qualifications and experience for promotion specified in the relevant column, should be taken into consideration against vacancies existing as on 1st April of the year of selection. But since the Rules came to be amended and the amendment became effective with immediate effect and clause (11-B) of Rule 24-A indicates that options have been given to the Government or the appointing authority, as the case may be, to revise the select list as existing as per the law as on the date of the appointment or as may be directed by a competent court, selection is required to be made by the DPC concerned An appointment made, after selection as per the procedure, to the vacancies existing prior to the amendment, is valid. But the question is whether selection would be made in the case of appointment to Page No.# 22/45 the vacancies which admittedly arose after the amendment of the Rules came into force, according to the amended Rules or in terms of Rule 9 read with Rules 23 and 24-A, as mentioned hereinbefore. This Court has considered the similar question in para 9 of the judgment abovecited. This Court has specifically laid that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not by the amended Rules. Accordingly, this Court had held that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not the amended Rules. As a necessary corollary, the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled in in accordance with the law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose. Undoubtedly, the selection came to be made prior to the amendment of the Rules in accordance with law then existing since the anticipated vacancies also must have been taken into consideration in the light of Rule 9 of the Rules. But after the amended Rules came into force, necessarily the amended Rules would be required to be applied for and given effect to. But, unfortunately, that has not been done in the present case. The two courses are open to the Government or the appointing authority viz. either to make temporary promotions for the ensuing financial year until the DPC meets or in exercise of the power under Rule 24-A(11-B), they can revise the panel already prepared in accordance with the Rules and make appointments in accordance therewith." (emphasis supplied) 36. In B.L. Gupta v. MCD34, appointment to the post of Assistant Accountant of DESU under MCD was under consideration. These posts were to be filled in accordance with the statutory rules framed in 1978 which provided for an examination. 171 vacancies arose for the said posts in 1993. Only 79 persons who appeared in the examination were appointed. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi praying for all 171 vacancies to be filled as per the examination. Page No.# 23/45 During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Rules were amended in 1995 which provided that 80% of the posts to be filled by promotion and the remaining 20% by examination. The High Court while deciding these writ petitions held that 79 posts were validly filled and the remaining vacancies were to be filled as per the amended Rules. The question was whether the remaining vacancies are to be filled as per the amended Rules or the unamended Rules. 37. Allowing the appeals the Court held: (B.L. Gupta case, SCC pp. 226-27, paras 9-10) "9. When the statutory rules had been framed in 1978, the vacancies had to be filled only according to the said Rules. The 1995 Rules have been held to be prospective by the High Court and in our opinion this was the correct conclusion. This being so, the question which arises is whether the vacancies which had arisen earlier than 1995 can be filled as per the 1995 Rules. Our attention has been drawn by Mr Mehta to a decision of this Court in N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission. In that case after referring to the earlier decisions in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P. and A.A. Calton v. Director of Education it was held by this Court that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. Though the High Court has referred to these judgments, but for the reasons which are not easily decipherable its applicability was only restricted to 79 and not 171 vacancies, which admittedly existed. This being the correct legal position, the High Court ought to have directed the respondent to declare the results for 171 posts of Assistant Accountants and not 79 which it had done. 10. ... The 1978 Rules prescribe the mode in which the promotions can be made. This mode has to be followed before the appointments could be made. If no statutory rules had existed, it may have been possible, though we express Page No.# 24/45 no opinion on it, that the existing incumbents may have been regularised. Where, however, statutory rules exist, the appointments and promotions have to be made in accordance with the statutory rules specially where it has not been shown to us that the Rules gave the power to the appointing authority of relaxing the said Rules. In the absence of any such power of relaxation, the appointment as Assistant Accountant could only be made by requiring the candidates to take the examination which was the method which was prescribed by the 1978 Rules." (emphasis supplied) 38. B.L. Gupta v. MCD: In this short judgment, the Court proceeded on the premise that Rangaiah and the subsequent decisions such as N.T. Devin Katti held that vacancies occurring prior to the amendment should be governed by the old Rules. There is neither a discussion on the constitutional position, nor is there a reference to the principle governing service conditions of a government servant as laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon case. Suffice it to say that the Court has in its order referred to and followed Rangaiah. This is the fourth case which has merely followed Rangaiah without examining the principle. 39. In Arjun Singh Rathore v. B.N. Chaturvedi the Court followed Rangaiah in its short order. The case related to promotion to the post of Area Managers or Senior Managers under the relevant 1988 Rules. While 15 vacancies were available for promotion, the Rules came to be amended in 1998. Reversing the decision of the High Court, this Court observed that the vacancies had to be filled as per the vacancies that existed prior to the amendment of the rules under which the process of interviews and selection had already taken place. The Court followed Rangaiah and observed: (Arjun Singh Rathore case, SCC p. 608, para 6) *6. The above legal position has not been seriously disputed by the Page No.# 25/45 learned counsel for Respondents 6 and 7. We are therefore of the opinion that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the enforcement of the Rules of 1998 had to be filled in under the 1988 Rules and as per the procedure laid down therein." (emphasis supplied) 40. It is only to ensure a detailed analysis and review of the decisions that have followed Rangaiah that we are referring to each of these judgments. We notice that the follow-up cases have simply referred to Rangaiah when the Court felt that the selection process must be as per the Rules which existed prior to the amendment. None of these cases recognise the existence of any vested right, nor do they refer to constitutional position or the principle laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon case. 41. In State of Bihar v. Mithilesh Kumar the Court was concerned with the appointment to the posts of Instructors and Assistant Instructors as per an advertisement published on 30-12-2001. Pursuant to the advertisement, the writ petitioner applied and was called for an interview on 9-11-2002. Thereafter, on 14- 11-2002, instructions were issued not to send any further recommendations to the said post as the scheme under which the appointments to the post were called for was no longer valid. The respondent therein was declared successful in the interview but was not appointed and therefore he approached the Court. 42. While upholding the decision of the High Court and dismissing the appeal, this Court following Rangaiah held: (Mithilesh Kumar case, SCC pp. 471-72, paras 14 & 23) "14. The learned counsel submitted that the conditions of the advertisement inviting applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Instructor (Electronics) in Kamla Nehru Social Service Institute for Handicapped and Page No.# 26/45 Rehabilitation Training Centre, Patna, could not have been altered to the prejudice of the respondent on account of a decision taken subsequently to have persons with disabilities trained by professionally established NGOs/institutions. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao where this Court in similar circumstances had held that when service rules are amended, vacancies which had occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. 23. While a person may not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely on the basis of selection, in the instant case the fact situation is different since the claim of the respondent to be appointed had been negated by a change in policy after the selection process had begun." (emphasis supplied) 43. This is a case of selection by way of an advertisement and not promotion of a government servant from a post held by him. The Court observed that the terms of the advertisement could not have been altered to the prejudice of the respondent on the basis of a decision taken subsequently. There was no occasion for the Court to consider the status of a public servant in the context of rules governing his service. 44. In Kulwant Singh v. Daya Ram, the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 dealt with the promotion of Constables to the post of Head Constables. The 1982 Amendment to Rule 13.7 mandated that constables considered for promotion to be sent to a promotional course on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. A batch of 15 constables was selected on the basis of the 1982 Rules and was sent for the course in April 1988. Thereafter, 71 vacancies arose and another amendment to the Rule in 1988 was made which provided for sending constables to the promotional course on merit-cum- seniority basis. The issue arose when the Senior Superintendent of Police issued a Page No.# 27/45 letter to the effect that new Rules would apply to the said promotions. 45. Interdicting the decision and reiterating the decision of the Tribunal which followed Rangaiah and the subsequent decisions referred to in paras 38 to 41, the Court observed: (Kulwant Singh case, SCC p. 200, paras 41-42) "41. In B.L. Gupta the Court reiterated the principle stated in Y.V. Rangaiah, P. Ganeshwar Rao and A.A. Calton v. Director of Education wherein it had been held that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of rules were governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. In Arjun Singh Rathore the views stated in Y.V. Rangaiah and R. Dayal were reiterated. 42. The reference to the aforesaid proposition of law makes it vivid that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in Acchhar Chand case was in accordance with the precedent of this Court and, in fact the Tribunal clearly meant that." 46. In Richa Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh, the issue related to appointment to the post of DSP. The State Government sent a requisition for filling up various vacancies including the post of DSP in accordance with the 2000 Rules. Thereafter, the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 were published. The appellant therein participated in the selection process and she qualified at each stage. However, her name was still not included in the list of successful candidates since the 2000 Rules provided that the upper age- limit for appointment to the post of DSP was 25 years and she had already crossed the said age-limit and therefore was ineligible for the post in question. The question that arose for consideration was whether the 2000 Rules or the 2005 Rules would apply. Page No.# 28/45 47. Having examined the requisition for appointment, which was made prior to the advent of the new Rules and further applying the principle of Rangaiah the Court observed as under: (Richa Mishra case, SCC pp. 193-94, para 18) "18. The High Court held that the first and second requisitions to commence recruitment process against the vacant seats to the post of DSP were made when the 2000 Rules were in force. Therefore, recruitment was rightly undertaken under the 2000 Rules. The admitted facts are that the process of selection started before the 2005 Rules were promulgated with the requisitions dated 27-9-2004 and 26-3-2005 sent by the State Government to CPSC. At that time, the 2000 Rules were in vogue. For this reason, even in the requisition it was mentioned that appointments are to be made under the 2000 Rules. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the vacancies in question which were to be filled were for the period prior to 2005. Such vacancies needed to be filled in as per those Rules i.e. the 2000 Rules. This is patent legal position which can be discerned from Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao." (emphasis supplied) 48. As is evident from the above, this decision also applied Rangaiah in the context of the facts and without any reference to the constitutional position of the employment of a government servant and the principle laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon case. 49. Except in P. Ganeshwar Rao, which not only followed Rangaiah but also observed that the new Rules enabled the vacancies to be filled as per the Rules that existed prior to the amendment, all the other judgments adopted the principle in Rangaiah and directed appointments to be made as per the rules that existed when the vacancies arose. These cases do not discuss any source of such a right of a government employee. There is also no reference to any rule, be it old or new, to Page No.# 29/45 enable effectuation of such a right. None of these cases refer to constitutional position of status or the principle laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon case. 50. We will now discuss cases that have distinguished Rangaiah. These decisions adopt different reasons for not following the principle laid down in Rangaiah. 24.1] In the said judgment, the Apex Court thereafter, considered the decisions which have distinguished the Rangaiah (supra) principle. “51. In Union of India v. S.S. Uppal the respondent therein was being considered for absorption to IAS for a vacancy that arose in 1-2-1989. The Indian Administrative Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987 were amended on 3-2- 1989. The respondent who was appointed on 15-2-1989 claimed that his seniority must be calculated from the date on which the vacancy arose i.e. 1-2-1989 and for this purpose he relied on the decision in Rangaiah and that was accepted by the Tribunal. Reversing the decision of the Tribunal, this Court held that Rangaiah has no application at all. 52. Further, relying on the decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, which held that the existence of a vacancy does not give rise to a legal right to a selected candidate, the Court held as under: (S.S. Uppal case, SCC pp. 173-74, paras 15 & 17) "15. The facts in the case before us are entirely different. There has been no infraction of any rule or violation of any instruction issued by the Government. Respondent 1 has not been able to point out any violation of rules or regulations on the part of the Government by which he was prejudicially affected. Page No.# 30/45 17... He was actually inducted into the service on 15-2-1989. The rules which were in force on that day for determination of seniority will clearly apply to his case. It is true that Uppal's name was included in a panel drawn up sometime in August 1988. But mere inclusion of his name in the panel did not confer upon him any right to automatic appointment to the IAS. Nor can it be said that he was to be treated as to have been appointed from the date when a suitable post fell vacant. ... The seniority of an officer appointed into the IAS is determined according to the seniority rules applicable on the date of appointment to the IAS. Weightage in seniority cannot be given retrospective effect unless it was specifically provided in the rule in force at the material time." (emphasis supplied) 53. SBI v. Kashinath Kher is again a case where the employee relied on the principle in Rangaiah to contend that promotion to the post of Middle Management Grade Scale II is to be made on the basis of vacancies that arose in 1988, 1989 and 1990 without applying the new policy that came into effect from 1990. In the first place, this is a case involving service under State Bank of India, not being a service under the State governed by laws or rules made under Article 309. However, as we are considering the principle laid down in Rangaiah and also the decisions that followed and dissented it, we have examined this case. It is interesting to note that the learned Judges assumed that Rangaiah case considered a question of "retrospective application of the rule to the vacancies existing prior to the rules". In fact, Rangaiah does not observe anything like that and we would leave it at this. 54. This Court observed: (Kashinath Kher case, SCC p. 771, para 14) *14. The learned counsel for the respondents is not right in contending that the vacancies have arisen in 1988, 1989 and 1990 and that the rule of Page No.# 31/45 relaxation cannot be given in 1990 to the vacancies that have arisen in 1988, 1989 and 1990 and be considered according to the rules in vogue when the vacancies had arisen. It is seen that the policy decision was taken for the first time on 21-3-1990 effective from 1-8-1988. In other words, the promotions are required to be considered retrospectively in the light of the decision to fill up the vacancies existing as on August 1988. Therefore, it is not a case of applying a rule which was made later to a vacancy which was existing anterior thereto. Equally, it is not correct to state that this principle is an unjust principle. It is true that this Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao had considered the question of retrospective application of the rule to the vacancies existing prior to the rules, in paras 7 and 8 of the judgment. But in that case, the rule was in vogue for Sub-Registrars Grade II in Registration Department of Andhra Pradesh. But no list was prepared, promotion was not made according to the existing rules. The list of eligible candidates was prepared according to the amended Rules, consequential to the zonal system introduced in Andhra Pradesh under Article 371-D of the Constitution and Presidential Order. It was held that the vacancies that had arisen prior to making the amendment to the Rules should be filled in accordance with the rules that were in vogue prior to the amendment and vacancies that arose subsequently should be filled according to the amended Rules. That situation does not apply to the factual matrix." (emphasis supplied) 55. K. Ramulu v. S. Suryaprakash Rao is an important decision. The issue related to applicability of the A.P. Animal Husbandry Services Rules, 1996 (which repealed the existing 1977 Rules) to vacancies that arose before the 1996 Amendment to the promotional post of Assistant Director. Under Rule 4, the Government was to prepare and operate the panel for the year 1995-1996 for promotion to the said post. However, a conscious decision was taken in 1988 by the Government not to fill up any Page No.# 32/45 vacancies until the repealed rules were duly amended. In light of this, the Government did not prepare and finalise the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeons to Assistant Director for the year 1995-1996. It was held that: (SCC pp. 66- 67, paras 12, 13 & 15) "12. ... But the question is whether the ratio in Rangaiah case would apply to the facts of this case. The Government therein merely amended the Rules, applied the amended Rules without taking any conscious decision not to fill up the existing vacancies pending amendment of the Rules on the date the new Rules came into force. It is true, as contended by Mr H.S. Gururaja Rao, that this Court has followed the ratio therein in many a decision and those cited by him are P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P., P Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, A.A. Calton v. Director of Education, N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, Ramesh Kumar Choudha v. State of M. P45 In none of these decisions, a situation which has arisen in the present case had come up for consideration. ... 13. It is seen that since the Government have taken a conscious decision not to make any appointment till the amendment of the Rules, Rule 3 of the General Rules is not of any help to the respondent. ... 15. Thus, we hold that the first respondent has not acquired any vested right for being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed Rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government which we find is justifiable on the material available from the record placed before us. We hold that the Tribunal was not right and correct in directing the Government to prepare and operate the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Directors of Animal Husbandry Department in accordance with the repealed Rules and to operate the same. Page No.# 33/45 (emphasis supplied) 56. This judgment clearly recognises the principle that a policy decision taken by the Government in public interest would prevail over any claim to fill up the vacancies. Further, when such a decision is taken, the employee has no vested right for being considered for promotion in accordance with repealed rules. 57. In Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram an advertisement for direct recruitment to 23 posts of Assistant Director (Junior) under Rules, 198646 was released on 5-11-1993. The respondent therein applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. Further, the last date for applying in pursuance of this advertisement was 31-12-1993. However, on 28-12-1993, three days prior to the last date for applications, the State Government asked RPSC not to proceed with the recruitments. Thereafter, on 19-4-1995, the Rules were amended and consequently, the aforementioned advertisement was cancelled. Another consequence of the amendment was that the post of Assistant Director (Junior) was abolished and restructured as Marketing Officer. A fresh advertisement for 26 posts of Marketing Officer was released and the 23 posts, in respect of which the advertisement was issued, were carried forward. The respondent successfully contended before the High Court that the recruitment must be based on the rules that existed at the time of vacancies by relying on the decision on Rangaiah and the subsequent cases that followed it. 60. In G. Venkateshwara Rao v. Union of India the appellant therein expected appointment by promotion against a vacancy that arose in 1991, being the very next candidate on the panel. However, the proposal remained pending till 1993 and in the meanwhile cadre restructuring took place and as a result of which another candidate became eligible to be appointed. Relying on Rangaiah he contended that vacancies must be filled as per the Rules that existed prior to the restructuring. Rejecting the argument, the Court observed as under: (G. Venkateshwara Rao case, SCC pp. 457- Page No.# 34/45 58, paras 4-5) "4. ... the learned advocate appearing in support of this appeal reiterated the same contentions and urged that the view taken by CAT, Hyderabad is erroneous and cannot be sustained. While dealing with the first contention, he urged that if the Railway Board were to take the decision expeditiously, the appellant could have been accommodated on such dereserved vacancy. He urged that there was no impediment in taking the decision of dereservation and it was merely an inaction on the part of the Railway Board which had deprived the appellant of being appointed against the vacancy. We do not see any substance in this contention because nothing has been pointed out to us from the record which would justify this contention. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and in particular, he relied upon paras 4 and 9. We have gone through the judgment and in our opinion, the ratio thereof has no application. It was a case dealing with delay in preparing panel for promotional cadre under the then existing rules which were substituted by new Rules. The panel was prepared under the new Rules. 5. Coming to the second contention as regards restructuring of the cadre, it is quite clear that the restructuring appears to have been made for the efficient working in the workshop unit. We, therefore, do not see any substance in this contention." (emphasis supplied) 69. This is a very important case which recognises many points of distinction: (a) The Court found that there is no statutory duty cast on the Government to prepare panels as in Rangaiah, Page No.# 35/45 (b) a candidate has a right to be considered only as per the existing rules i.e. "the rule in force" (c) the rule applicable is the rule in force as on the date of consideration, (d) the principle in Rangaiah has no universal application, (e) for reasons germane to its decision, the Government is entitled to take a conscious decision about the filling of the vacancies and the rules applicable. This decision made deep inroads into the principle laid down in Rangaiah case. 70. M.I. Kunjukunju v. State of Kerala related to a claim made by the appellant therein to the post of Industrial Extension Officers. In this case that the selection process commenced on 25-6-1992 when the Commission invited applications and prescribed the method of appointment and qualifications for the post of Industrial Extension Officers. It was contended that the new Rules issued in 2001 could not have a retrospective effect to take away the vested right. The vested right argument was considered in detail and the Court rejected the same on the ground that no vested right exists and held as under: (SCC pp. 448-50, paras 19, 22-23 & 26) "19. Therefore, it is clear that a candidate on making application for the post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for selection. If he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules, he does acquire right for being considered for selection as per existing rules. 22. In the present case, the Rules have not been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The legislature has framed Page No.# 36/45 the 1968 Act in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under the 1968 Act, the State Government was empowered to make Rules either prospectively or retrospectively to regulate the recruitment and condition of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in question with the Department of Industry and Commerce of the State of Kerala. 23. In view of such delegation of power of the legislature to the State under the 1968 Act, the Special Rules framed by the State Government giving retrospective effect from 1-7-1983 cannot be held to be illegal o invalid. 26. In the present case, we find that the appellants have not derived any benefit out of the old government order which was in force at the time advertisement. We, therefore, hold that no vested right or benefit accrued to the appellants have been taken away by sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Special Rules.” (emphasis supplied) 72. In State of Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty the Court considered a submission that additional posts in "Group A" and "Group B" of Schedule IV must be considered only on the basis of the rules that existed prior to the amendment on 24- 12-2011. The Court found no difficulty in straight away applying the decision of this Court in Deepak Agarwals which distinguishes Rangaiah to hold as under: (Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty cases, SCC pp. 650-51, paras 9-10) "9. The law is thus clear that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, namely, "rules in force on the date" the consideration takes place and that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled by the law existing on the date when they Page No.# 37/45 arose. As against the case of total exclusion and absolute deprivation of a chance to be considered as in Deepak Agarwal in the instant case certain additional posts have been included in the feeder cadre, thereby expanding the zone of consideration. It is not as if the writ petitioners or similarly situated candidates were totally excluded. At best, they now had to compete with some more candidates. In any case, since there was no accrued right nor was there any mandate that vacancies must be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arose, the State was well within its rights to stipulate that the vacancies be filled in accordance with the Rules as amended. Secondly, the process to amend the Rules had also begun well before the Notification dated 24-11-2011. 10. In our view, the instant case is fully covered by the law laid down by this Court in Deepak Agarwal and the High Court was completely in error in allowing the writ petition and in dismissing the writ appeals. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the judgment56 under appeal and dismiss Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 104, 105, 106, 153 and 181 of 2012." 73. The Court reiterated that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must be filled as per the law existing on the date when they arose. The Court held that there is neither an accrued right nor is there a mandate under the rules to fill the vacancies as per the law that existed. The Court recognised the right of the Government to stipulate the vacancies in accordance with rules as amended. 74. By 2019 the perspective in which this Court has considered the decision in Rangaiah was clear. By this time, the Court recognised many exceptions to the principle. In Union of India v. Krishna Kumar, this Court noted that: (SCC p. 322, para 10) "10. ... The decision of this Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao has been Page No.# 38/45 construed in subsequent decisions as a case where the applicable Rules required the process of promotion or selection to be completed within a stipulated time-frame." This case relates to a claim made by Havaldars for being considered for the post of Naib Subedar for the vacancies which occurred prior to the changes that were made in the structure of Assam Rifles in 2011. The High Court accepted the submission and directed the applicants to be considered for the posts as per the pre-amended Rules. 76. Apart from holding that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of the law that existed on the date when they arose, this Court also held that the right is to be considered for promotion in accordance with rules as they exist when the exercise is carried out for promotion. 78. Following the line adopted in Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. this Court held that the respondents therein do not have a vested and fructified right and therefore held that the appointments need not be made as per the old Rules. 79. In Rajasthan State Sports Council v. Uma Dadhich, the respondent therein was appointed under the Rajasthan State Sports Council on the posts of Coach Grade III on 20-3-1986. She was promoted to Coach Grade II in 1990 and Coach Grade I in 1997. Promotion to the post of Sports Officer from the cadre of Coach Grade I was challenged by the respondent on the ground that the posts fell vacant in the year 2003-2004, for which the 2006 Rules changed the qualification from mere seniority to seniority-cum-merit could not be applied. Allowing the appeal this Court has held as under: (SCC pp. 317-18, paras 5-7) "5. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the respondent had no vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date Page No.# 39/45 when the case for promotion was taken up. This principle has been reiterated in several decisions of this Court. (See H.S. Grewal v. Union of India, Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., State of Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty and Union of India v. Krishna Kumar.) 6. The judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao dealt with a situation where the rules required that the promotional exercise must be completed within the relevant year. Rangaiah case has hence been distinguished in the judgments noted above. 7. Rule 9(4) of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006 on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant does not indicate that the vacancies must be filled in on the basis of Rules as they prevail in the year in which they have occurred. Rule 9(4) is in the following terms: "9. (4) The appointing authority shall determine the vacancies of earlier years, year-wise which were required to be filled in by promotion, if such vacancies were not determined and filled earlier in the year in which they were required to be filled in.' " (emphasis supplied) 80. The Court considered a large number of decisions that distinguished Rangaiah case and held as a matter of principle that rules that exist on the date when the case for promotion was taken up would hold the field. The Court further observed that there is no rule which specifically mandates that the vacancies prior to the amendment must be filled as per the rules that existed and not the new Rules. This is a complete reversal of the principle set to have been laid down in Rangaiah case. 81. Finally, D. Raghu v. R. Basaveswarudu, is yet another decision that has not Page No.# 40/45 followed the principle in Rangaiah case. The Court held as under: (D. Raghu case, SCC p. 68, para 129) "129. ... 129.8. The High Court was in error in holding that it has to be necessarily held that the vacancies which arose prior to the revised Recruitment Rules coming into force have to be filled up under the then existing Rules ("the 1979 Rules") relying upon case law including Rangaiah. There was a conscious decision taken to not fill up vacancies based on the restructuring, and what is more, letters dated 28-10-2002 and 14-11-2002 show that promotion to the post of Inspector was to be effected based on the new Recruitment Rules." 25] Upon a comprehensive analysis of the law laid down by the Apex Court, including the decisions following the principle enunciated in Rangaiah (supra) and those departing therefrom, the Court crystallised the governing principles concerning claims made by incumbents for promotion against vacancies that had arisen prior to the amendment of the Rules. The Court also examined whether any vested right accrued in favour of such incumbents in respect of vacancies that had arisen prior to the amendment of the Rules. 26] The Apex Court further observed that, in view of the subsequent decisions which did not follow the principle enunciated in Rangaiah (supra) the ratio laid down therein had in effect been impliedly overruled. Accordingly, by the said judgment the Apex Court overruled the ratio in Rangaiah (supra) to the extent that it held that vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the Rules would necessarily be governed by the Rules in force on the date on which such vacancies arose. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted below: “82. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah would Page No.# 41/45 demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under: 82.1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein. 82.2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the "rule in force" as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. 82.3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. 63 There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old Rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14. 82.4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately. 82.5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases. Page No.# 42/45 83. The above-referred observations made in the fifteen decisions that have distinguished Rangaiah case demonstrate that the wide principle enunciated therein is substantially watered-down. Almost all the decisions that distinguished Rangaiah hold that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of law that existed on the date when they arose. This only implies that decision in Rangaiah is confined to the facts of that case. 84. The decision in Deepak Agarwal is a complete departure from the principle in Rangaiah inasmuch as the Court has held that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rule. That is the rule in force on the date the consideration takes place. This enunciation is followed in many subsequent decisions including that of Union of India v. Krishna Kumar. In fact, in Krishna Kumar Court held that there is only a "right to be considered for promotion in accordance with rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place" 27] The judgment of Raj Kumar (supra), therefore, clearly lays down the law governing claims made by incumbents in respect of vacancies that had arisen prior to the amendment of the Rules. The said vacancies are required to be filled in accordance with the Rules applicable at the relevant time, subject to the principles laid down in Raj Kumar (supra). The ratio of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar (supra) makes it clear that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of the law in force on the date on which such vacancies arose, as was held in Rangaiah (supra). It was held that the candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the “rules in force” as on the date the consideration takes place. (emphasis supplied) Page No.# 43/45 28] The Apex Court held that the right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. The principle laid down in Deepak Agarwal (supra) has been reiterated in the said judgment. 29] The Apex Court culled out the principle laid down in Deepak Agarwal (supra) :- there is no statutory duty cast on the Government to prepare panels as in Rangaiah (supra), :- candidate has a right to be considered only as per the existing rules i.e. “the rules in force”, :- the rule applicable is the rule in force as on the date of consideration, :- the principle in Rangaiah (supra) has no universal application and lastly, :- for reasons germane to its decision, the Government is entitled to take a conscious decision about filling of the vacancies and the rules applicable. 30] Coming to the facts of the present case, while there were vacancies available prior to the amendment of the Rules of 2024 from the minutes held on 09.04.2025, it is seen that the DPC minute expressed the intention of the Department to examine the eligibility criteria before filling up the vacancies. This led to several consultations with the relevant Departments as contended in the affidavit in opposition and subsequent thereto, the amendments were brought Page No.# 44/45 into the Rules of 2024. In pursuance to the amendments which were brought in the Rules underwent considerable amendments. Under the new Rules, it will now be incumbent for any employee who aspires to be promoted to fulfill the eligibility criteria as brought in by the amendments. From the pleadings available before the Court, and also upon due consideration of the submissions made by the parties, it is clear that there is no challenge made to the amendments brought in. The petitioners did not proceed for assailing the vires of the amendments brought into the Rules of 2024. Their only claim is that since the vacancies were available and the Department ought to have filled up these vacancies prior to the amendment of the Rules, their claim for promotion ought to have been considered under the pre-amended Rules. 31] Upon consideration of the law laid down by the Apex Court and scrutiny of the Rules available, it is seen that at the time when the promotional process was undertaken the Department did not proceed to fill up all the vacancies rather it recommended for scrutiny of the Rules and for bringing about the necessary amendment which was subsequently brought in. Although the writ petitioners claimed that the copies of the minutes or the communication for rejection of the claims of the writ petitioners were not made available, there was no explanation as to what steps have been taken to procure the same by the writ petitioners. No challenge has been made to the recommendation or any decision of the Government for amendment of the Rules. The intention of the Government not to fill up these posts without there being proper amendment is clear from the pleadings. 32] As has been laid down by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar (supra), the ratio Page No.# 45/45 laid down in Rangaiah (supra) was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. Notwithstanding, the fact that the principle enunciated therein was subsequently followed in several other cases, the Apex Court, in Deepak Agarwal (supra) departed from the said principle, which position has thereafter been reiterated in several subsequent judgments. The principle applicable to cases such as the present proceedings is therefore, that no incumbent has a vested right to promotion. An incumbent has only a fundamental right to be considered for promotion and such consideration has to be made in accordance with the Rules in force on the date on which the consideration for promotion is undertaken by the Government. 33] In view of the elaborate discussion of the earlier precedents by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar (supra) and the conclusions arrived at by the Court upon following the ratio laid down therein, it is not necessary to refer to or discuss the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in support of his contentions. 34] Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the claims of the writ petitioners for consideration of their claims for filling up the posts under the pre-amended Rules as these claims therefore, are not maintainable and therefore, the said claims are found to be devoid of any merit. 35] Both these writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant