JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioners challenge Ext.P24 order issued by the 1 st respondent, promoting the 2 nd respondent as a Library Assistant in its services. 2. It is the specific case of the petitioners, that the 2 nd respondent could not have been appointed as a Library Assistant, when the applicable Kerala High Court Service Rules , 2007 (hereinafter, “Rules” for short), had been amended retrospectively with effect from 01.01.2019; and when the vacancy allotted to him arose thereafter. They assert that, even as per Ext.P24 – namely the impugned order - when Rule 20(b) of the ‘Rules’ stood amended with effect from 01.01.2019, by excluding the post of Library Assistant from its ambit, no vacancies which arose thereafter could have been filled up in its contravention. They then add that, in fact, the 2 nd respondent had approached this Court through WP(C)No.33690/2019, impelling, inter alia, a challenge to the retrospective amendment of the ‘Rules’, but that it has been dismissed; against which, he and another has filed W.A.No.217/2023, which is still pending. 3. Sri.P.Nandakumar – learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, in the afore factual backdrop, it was inequitable and impermissible for the 1 st respondent to have issued Ext.P24 order, especially when, through a judicial declaration, the claim of the 2 nd respondent had been found to be untenable. He argued that, in such perspective, his clients are justified in challenging Ext.P24. 4. Sri.Nandakumar then submitted that, the impugned order appears to have been issued by invoking the Rule 40(3) of the “Rules”, but that the powers therein could have been exercised only in the interests of justice and equity, and not to dilute the provisions of the “Rules”. He contended that Ext.P24 is an unjust and inequitable exercise of the powers under Rule 40(3) of the “Rules”; and is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Sri.B.G.Harindranath, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Amith Krishnan H – learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, contended that none of the reliefs sought for by the petitioners can be granted, or even considered by this Court because, they have chosen not to impel any challenge to Rule 40(3) of the “Rules”. 5. Sri.B.G.Harindranath, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Amith Krishnan H – learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, contended that none of the reliefs sought for by the petitioners can be granted, or even considered by this Court because, they have chosen not to impel any challenge to Rule 40(3) of the “Rules”. He pointed out that the afore Rule provides that nothing contained in the “Rules” shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Chief Justice to deal with the case of any member of the service, or any candidate to be appointed to the service, in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable. He asserted that, Ext.P24 is an order issued by the 1 st respondent consequent to the exercise of power by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice as per the afore Rule; and that, in the absence of any challenge to the same, or to the order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, this petition becomes untenable. He prayed that this Writ Petition be, therefore, dismissed. 6. Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Shilpa Sreekumar – learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, argued that Ext.P24 has been issued by the 1 st respondent in valid exercise of power vested in it; and supported the contentions of Sri.B.G.Harindranath that, unless the aforesaid Rule had been challenged, the consequent order cannot be subjected to so. 7. There is force in the afore submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents because, as ex facie discernible from Ext.P24 order, it has been issued by the 1 st respondent luculently mentioning therein, that the Hon’ble the Chief Justice had invoked his power under Rule 40(3) of the “Rules”. The said provision will have to be read in its totality, for which, it is extracted as under: “Rule - 40. The said provision will have to be read in its totality, for which, it is extracted as under: “Rule - 40. Repeal and Savings:- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Nothing contained in these rules shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Chief Justice to deal with the case of any member of the service or any candidate to be appointed to the service in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable: Provided that, when any such rule is applicable to such member or person, the case shall not be dealt with in any manner less favourable to him than that provided by that rule.” 8. It is conceded, without any reservation, that the validity of the above provision has not been called into question by the petitioners. The Statutory provision is clear that, nothing contained in the ‘Rules’ can limit the power of the Honourable the Chief Justice to deal with the case of any member in service, or any candidate to be appointed in service, in a manner as would appear to be just and equitable to him. 9. Pertinently, Ext.P24 records why the Hon’ble Chief Justice had invoked the aforesaid power, namely that the 2 nd respondent was part of a vanishing category of employees, who had joined service prior to the coming into force of the “Rules”; thus having a legitimate expectation of being promoted in future under its ambit. However, the “Rules” were then amended with retrospective effect from 1.1.2019; and, as also mentioned in Ext.P24, there were four vacancies available at the time of such amendment, which arose prior to 1.1.2019, along with two after the said date. On account of the amendment, four candidates – who were similarly situated as the 2 nd respondent and who had only the qualifications as per the unamended “Rules” - were appointed, but the next two vacancies were filled up by those candidates who had the qualifications as per the amendment – then having arisen after 1.1.2019. On account of the amendment, four candidates – who were similarly situated as the 2 nd respondent and who had only the qualifications as per the unamended “Rules” - were appointed, but the next two vacancies were filled up by those candidates who had the qualifications as per the amendment – then having arisen after 1.1.2019. The impugned Ext.P24 order further records that thus, from among the six persons who are part of the vanishing category, similarly placed four had already been appointed as Library Assistants, but such benefit been denied to the other two, including the 2 nd respondent, solely on account of the fact that the amendments to the “Rules” were given retrospective effect from 1.1.2019. The order says that, it is to address this specific discrimination, that the benefit of relaxation from the “Rules” was offered, inter alia, to the 2 nd respondent as a special case, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. 10. As recorded earlier, the argument of Sri.Nandakumar - learned counsel for the petitioners, is that, though his clients have chosen not to challenge the vires of Rule 40(3) of the “Rules”, it is their specific case that the benefit granted to the 2 nd respondent is inequitable and unlawful, since the power under the afore said Rule could have been exercised only in the interests of justice and equity. 11. We are not impressed by the afore argument because, the power of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice under Rule 40(3) of the Rules is plenary in nature; and is to be used in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable. 12. As far as the specific factual factors involved in this case are concerned, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice thought it fit to grant benefit to the 2 nd respondent because, he and another alone had been denied promotion; while, all other similarly placed persons had been granted the same, solely on account of an event over which they had no control, namely, the retrospective amendment of the “Rules” with effect from 1.1.2019. 13. We cannot, hence, find the action reflected in Ext.P24 to be not just and equitable, so as to render the decision in it to be contrary to Rule 40(3) of the “Rules”. In the afore circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed.