High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3402/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI At the very outset, it is considered appropriate to extract in verbatim the pray ers made in all these writ petitions. In W.P.(C) No. 3826 of 2008, filed by the petitioner Smti. Bibha Neog, the prayers are as follows: (cid:28) In the premises set forth above it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that Yours Lordships could be graciously pleased to admit this petition, call for th e records to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus, certiorari o r any other appropriate writ/order(s)/direction(s) shall not be issued to the re spondents to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner from time to time praying for her due promotion to the post of ’Assistant Manager’ ARTFED within a specific time frame by taking effective steps as prayed for, to consid er the promotion of the petitioner to the post of ’Assistant Manager’ ARTFED whi ch is lying vacant by giving due weightage of her long years of experience in th e Exhibition and Publicity Section of the federation, seniority, her educational qualification and her good service record by giving all the promotional benefit s like that of other employees holding the post of ’Assistant Manager’ ARTFED as prayed for, to struck down the impugned executive action of the official respon dents blocking the petitioner’s due promotion to the said post by appointing fre sh person or persons from other branches of ARTFED as incharge of Assistant Man ager or Assistant Manager on Ad-hoc basis, but holding the same as illegal and u ltra-vires of the constitution of India for the reasons stated supra as prayed f or and as further suitable direction to the respondent authorities not to appoin t any fresh personnel or persons from other branches of ’ARTFED’ to the post of ’Assistant Manager’, Head Office, ARTFED till the final disposal of the instant writ proceedings, as prayed for to pay proper salary attached to the post of s enior Asstt. As prayed for. -And-
Legal Reasoning
Upon perusal of the records and hearing both the parties make the Rule a bsolute and or pass such further order(s) direction(s) as your Lordships may dee m fit and proper. -And- Pending final disposal of the Rule, a suitable direction may kindly be g iven to the respondent authorities not to appoint any fresh personnel or persons from other branches of ’ARTFED’ to the post of ’Assistant Manager’ Head office W.P. (C) No. 3402 of 2010 was filed by Smti. Bibha Neog with the followi ARTFED which is lying vacant as prayed for, as interim relief. (cid:29) 2. ng prayers: (cid:28) It is therefore prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit this peti tion, call for the records and issue rule calling upon the respondents why the o rder Ref No. A/E/329/2005/ 20/671-718 dated 5.6.2010 issued by the Managing Dire ctor ARTFED promoting the private respondents to the posts of Assistant Manager and the petitioner to the post of Sr. Branch Manager and continuation of the res pondent no.8 as the Assistant Manager (Publicity) on ad-hoc basis shall not be q uashed and as to why the respondent authorities shall not be directed to promote to the posts of Assistant Manager of the ARTFED as per selection of year wise b asis from the date when the posts of Assistant Manager were available in ARTFED for the private respondents and the petitioner and further as to why the respond ent authorities shall not be directed to forbear from giving effect to the said impugned order dated 5.6.2010 so far as promotion to the posts of Assistant Mana ger, ARTFED and after such cause or causes that may be shown, hearing the partie s and perusing the records further be pleased do make the rule absolute and/or p ass such further or other orders as your Lordships may seem fit and proper. -AND- It is further prayed that pending disposal of the rule, the impugned order dated 5.6.2010 issued by the Managing Director, ARTFED promoting the private responde nts as well as the petitioner may be stayed. (cid:29) 3. W.P.(C). No. 4157 of 2008, was filed by the petitioner Smti. Dalimi Haza rika with the following prayers: (cid:28) In the premises set forth above it is therefore most respectfully prayed that Yours Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of the case, issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate wri t order(s)/direction(s) shall not be issued to the respondents to fix the proper pay scale of the petitioner in the post of Senior Assistant-cum- Junior Account ant by implementing the official order dated 14.07.99(Annexure-D series), whereb y the pay scale of Senior Assistant’ was enhanced from Rs.1285-3075 to Rs.1475-3 825/- per month, which the petitioner is legally entitled to as per the order da ted 14.7.99, to take all the effective measures by the respondents to enhance th e scale of pay of the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant-cum-Junior Acco untant by implementing the aforesaid order (Annexure-D series) within a specific time from as prayed for, to consider the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant manager (Accounts) or in any other sections of ARTFED where the post a re lying vacant in the aforesaid cadre/post by giving due weightage of her long years of experience in the accounts section of ARTFED, seniority, educational qu alification and her good service records by giving all the promotional benefits like that of other employees holding the post of Assistant Manager in ARTFED as prayed for, to struck down the impugned executive action of the official respond ents blocking the petitioner’s due promotion to the said post by appointing fres h person or persons from other branches of ARTFED as in-charge Assistant manager or Assistant manager on ad-hoc basis, by holding the same as illegal and ultra- vires of the constitution of India for the reasons stated supra as prayed for an d a further suitable direction to the respondent authorities not to appoint any fresh personnel or persons from other branches of ARTFED to the post of Assistan t Manager, Head Office ARTFED till the final disposal of the instant writ procee ding, as prayed for. -And- Upon perusal of the records and hearing both the parties make the Rule a bsolute and or pass such further order(s) direction(s) as your Lordships may dee m fit and proper. -And- W.P.(C). No. 3409 of 2010, was filed by the petitioner Smti. Dalimi Haza Pending final disposal of the Rule, a suitable direction may kindly be g iven to the respondent authorities to take effective steps within a specific tim e frame to fix the proper pay scale of the petitioner in the post of Senior Assi stant-cum-Junior Accountant by enhancing the pay scale of the petitioner, thereb y implementing the official order dated 14.7.99 (Annexure-D series) in its true spirit as prayed for and a suitable direction may also kindly be given to the re spondent authorities to restrain themselves from appointing or engaging any fres h personnel or person from other branches of ARTFED to the post of Assistant Man ager, Head Office ARTFED which is lying vacant as prayed for, as an interim meas ure. (cid:29) 4. rika with the following prayers: (cid:28) It is therefore prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit this peti tion, call for the records and issue rule calling upon the respondents to show c ause as to why the order Ref No. A/E/329/2005/20/671-718 dated 5.6.2010 issued b y the Managing Director, ARTFED promoting the private respondents to the posts o f Assistant Manager and the petitioner to the post of Sr. Branch Manager and con tinuation of the respondent no.8 as the Assistant Manager (Publicity) on ad-hoc basis shall not be quashed and as to why the respondent authorities shall not be directed to promote to the posts of Assistant Manager of the ARTFED as per sel ection of yearwise basis from the date when the posts of Assistant Manager were available in ARTFED for the private respondents and the petitioner and further a s to why the respondent authorities shall not be directed to forbear from giving effect to the said impugned order dated 5.6.2010 so far as promotion to the pos ts of Assistant Manager, ARTFED and after such cause or causes that may be shown , hearing the parties and perusing the records further be pleased to make the ru le absolute and/or pass such further or other orders as your Lordships may seem fit and proper. -AND- It is further prayed that pending disposal of the rule, the impugned order dated 5.6.2010 issued by the Managing Director, ARTFED promoting the private responde nts as well as the petitioner as well as the order dated 9.5.2010 releasing the petitioner from the present post may be stayed. (cid:29) 5.
Decision
As agreed to by the learned senior counsel for the parties, all the four writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judg ment. Even as factual matrix of the cases filed by Smti. Bibha Neog and Smti. Da limi Hazarika differs in basic essential facts, such as, dates of appointment, p osts held by them etc., yet the foundation and substratum on which the edifice i s built for the reliefs prayed is more or less same. There is a common thread we aving the material fabric in all these cases. Smti. Dalimi Hazarika has made add itional prayer for enhanced salary on the basis of pleadings. Smti. Bibha Neog h as also, without much pleading, prays for the salary attached to the post of Sen ior Assistant. The learned Senior counsel for the parties also submit that the i ssues in respect of the writ petitions are common. 6. The facts projected in the cases will be taken note of but for the purp ose of reference, unless the context otherwise requires, documents annexed in W .P.(C) No.3826 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No.3402 of 2010 will be referred to for the s ake of convenience. 7. The case projected in W.P.(C) No.3826 of 2008 filed by Smti. Bibha Neog is that the petitioner entered into service of Assam Apex Weavers and Artisans C o-operative Federation Limited (for short, ARTFED) as a Junior Assistant on 22.8 .1987. ARTFED is a public sector undertaking which is fully controlled by the Go vernment of Assam. She was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the Exhib ition and Publicity Section of ARTFED by an order dated 13.4.1995 and she contin ued to hold the said post. After she had put in about seven years as Senior Assi stant, when a post of Assistant Manager was lying vacant in the Exhibition and P ublicity Section at that time, she requested the authorities to appoint her by w ay of promotion to the said post. However, one Smti Indrani Lahkar was appointed on Ad hoc basis as a fresh candidate. Later on, by an order dated 3.4.2002, her service was extended until further orders with effect from 1.2.2002. On 8.4.200 2, an order was issued allowing one Raghunath Barman, Senior Branch Manager of A RTFED, Dispur Branch to perform managerial duties for exhibition fairs of ARTFED in addition to his own duties ignoring the claim of the petitioner. In these co nnections, several representations were submitted. However, these representation s did not evoke any response. She is also not getting the salary attached to the post of Senior Assistant. 8. After the post of Superintendent in Personnel (Establishment) Department was re-designated as Assistant Manager (Personnel) by an order dated 25.11.2004 , the petitioner submitted a representation on 29.11.2004 to consider her prayer for posting as Assistant Manager (Personnel). However, one Sri Surajit Talukdar , a Senior Branch Manager, was allowed to hold the post of Assistant Manager (Pe rsonnel). The petitioner once again made a representation for consideration of h er case for promotion. Further representations also followed, but with no respon se. 9. Salient facts as projected by Smti. Dalimi Hazarika in W.P(C)No. 4157 o f 2008 is that she joined on 11.4.1979 in ARTFED as Junior Office Assistant. She was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) in the pay scale of Rs. 1285- 3075/- by an order 13.4.1995. Prior to her such promotion, she was also al lowed to work in the Accounts Section by an order dated 3.8.1989 and after her p romotion as Senior Assistant (Accounts), she was allowed to work as Junior Accou ntant in the same scale of pay of Senior Assistant by an order dated 3.8.1995 and since then she had been working as Senior Assistant -cum- Junior Accountant. By an order dated 14.7.1999, issued by Deputy Director, Handloom and Textiles, pay scale of various posts in ARTFED including the post of Senior Assistant was enhanced and for the post of Senior Assistant, pay scale was increased to Rs.14 75-3825/-. However, the benefit of the enhanced pay scale was not given to the p etitioner and as such, she had submitted representations dated 29.1.2007, 16.3.2 007 and 31.5.2007 for implementation of enhanced pay scale but to no avail. Smti . Sarojinee Devi, who was the earlier incumbent in the post of Senior Accountant , was, however, allowed to enjoy the pay scale of Rs.1475-3825/- which pay scale was inexplicably denied to her when she was promoted as such. A post of Assista nt Manager (Accounts) having fallen vacant with the promotion of one Shri Ajay K umar Das as Manager (Accounts) by an order dated 25.11.2004, she submitted a rep resentation dated 30.11.2004 to the Managing Director for promoting her to the s aid post of Assistant Manager (Accounts). Earlier, on 13.7.1999, she had repres ented for promoting her to the post of Senior Accountant. However, her represent ations did not bear any fruit. When the post of Superintendent in Personnel (Est ablishment) Department of ARTFED was re-designated as Assistant Manager (Personn el), she had requested for her promotion to the said post. 10. Similar pleadings as in W.P.(C) No.3826 of 2008 are offered by Smti. Dal imi Hazarika in respect of Smti. Indrani Lahkar, Shri Raghu Nath Barman and Shri Surajit Talukdar. 11. In W.P.(C) No. 3826 of 2008, the Managing Director of ARTFED filed a pr eliminary affidavit on 27.11.2008 stating that ARTFED is a Co-operative Society and there is a set of Service Rules, namely, ARTFED Service Rules, 2000 (for sho rt, Rules of 2000) and Rules 12, 13 & 14 thereof deal with promotion. It is stat ed that by Notification dated 8.9.2008, a Selection Committee for promotion of e mployees of ARTFED had been constituted and the case of the eligible incumbents including the case of the petitioner was actively considered and the result of t he assessment of the Selection Committee was being awaited. Preliminary affidavi t was also filed in W.P.(C) No. 4157 of 2008 stating that letter dated 14.7.1999 is only a recommendation for enhancing the pay scale which was never accepted a nd approved by ARTFED and as such, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of enh anced pay scale is misconceived. Referring to the Notification dated 8.9.2008, i t is stated that the case of the petitioner for promotion was receiving due cons ideration and result of the assessment of the Selection Committee was being awai ted. In both the preliminary affidavits, the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 prayed for d ismissal of the writ petition(s) as pre-mature. 12. W.P.(C) No. 3826 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No. 4157 of 2008 were admitted on 27.2.2009 with a direction to the respondent authorities to finalise the process of selection for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager and to place the re sult thereof before the Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition. 13. W.P.(C) No. 3402 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No. 3409 of 2010 came to be filed by Smti. Bibha Neog and Smti. Dalimi Hazarika, respectively, as in pursuance of Resolution No. 7(1) of the meeting of the Board of Directors of ARTFED held on 1 4.5.2010, following the recommendation of the Selection Committee, an order date d 5.6.2010 was issued by the Managing Director of ARTFED promoting/regularising some employees. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3402 of 2010 was also promoted as S enior Branch Manager (Establishment Section), instead of to the post of Assistan t Manager, as claimed by her. Smti. Dalimi Hazarika was promoted as Senior Branc h Manager (Accounts) by the order dated 5.6.2010 and not to the post of Assistan t Manager (Accounts), as claimed by her. Being aggrieved, they filed their respe ctive writ petition(s). 14. An affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 5, both in W.P. (C) No.3402 of 2010 and in W.P.(C) No. 3409 of 2010 by one Sri Mukul Chandra Dek a, General Manager, ARTFED. In the said affidavit(s), it is stated that subseque nt to the order of this court dated 27.2.2009, some new developments had taken p lace in the process of departmental promotion. The Selection Committee constitut ed vide Notification dated 8.9.2008, had submitted one report in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 23.6.2009. The report was not approved by the Boa rd of Directors. It was felt that selections made were not proper and correct an d they decided to make amendment of the existing Service Rules. The Selection Co mmittee constituted vide Notification dated 8.9.2008 was dissolved and promotion of the employees were kept in abeyance till new Service Rules were framed. Acco rdingly, ARTFED Service Rules, 2010, (for short, Rules of 2010) was brought into operation. A new Selection Committee was constituted on 15.5.2010 which conside red the cases of eligible incumbents and thereafter, order dated 5.6.2010 was is sued. Smti Smti. Bibha Neog was promoted as Senior Branch Manager (Establishment ), which is the next higher promotional post from the cadre of Senior Assistant, which post she was holding. Similarly, Smti. Dalimi Hazarika was promoted as Se nior Branch Manager (Accounts), which is the next higher post to the post which Smti. Dalimi Hazarika was holding. It is stated that the Smti. Bibha Neog was co nsidered for the post of Branch Manager only under Rules of 2000 as there was no scope under the Rules of 2000 for her promotion to the post of Assistant Manage r. Under the Rules of 2000, even for the post of Branch Manager, Smti. Bibha Neo g did not have the requisite qualification but her name was recommended subject to condonation of requisite qualification of Mass Communication or Public Relati on. In respect of Smti. Dalimi Hazarika, it is stated that her case was earlier considered under the Rules of 2000 for the post of Internal Auditor and she was not eligible to be considered for the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) as th e post of Accountant was the feeder cadre for the post of Assistant Manager (Acc ounts). In both the affidavits, it is stated that at no point of time it was con tended by ARTFED that the cases of the petitioner(s) were considered for the pos t of Assistant Manager but that their cases were considered for promotion to the next higher post as per the Rules in force. 15. Smti Indrani Lahkar, against whose ad hoc appointment as Assistant Manag er (Publicity), the petitioners had made grievances, is now regularised as Branc h Manager (Publicity) vide order dated 27.8.2010, a post lower than the post of Senior Branch Manager to which the petitioners were promoted. Raghu Nath Barman was working as Senior Branch Manager from 13.5.1995, was not promoted as contend ed by the petitioner(s) but was entrusted with additional managerial duties, and such additional entrustment was not accompanied by any financial benefits. The petitioner(s) are not eligible to claim promotion to the post of Assistant Manag er (Personnel), to which post also they staked claim after the post of Superinte ndent was re-designated as Assistant Manager (Personnel). An additional affidavit was filed by ARTFED on 18.6.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 16. 3826 of 2008 bringing on record the order dated 5.6.2010 and indicating the sel ection process undertaken under the Rules of 2010 and stating that the post of A ssistant Manager (Publicity) had not been filled up as there was no fit person t o hold that post. An additional affidavit was also filed by the petitioner again st the said additional affidavit. Similar exchange of affidavits had taken place in W.P.(C) No.4157 of 2008. 17. Mr. C. Baruah, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that w hen this court had passed an order on 27.2.2009 directing finalisation of proces s for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager and had directed that the resul t thereof be placed before the Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition , there has to be a consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager , which is apparently not done by ARTFED. Consideration of the case of the petit ioner(s) after filing W.P.(C) No. 3826 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No. 4157 of 2008 in t erms of Rules of 2010 is wholly arbitrary and that the petitioners have been de nied their rightful promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. Learned senior c ounsel submits that the petitioners have been discriminated and many promotions had been effected by ARTFED on pick and choose basis denying their legitimate cl aim. The learned senior counsel submits that when the vacancy for the post of As sistant Manager was available before the Rules of 2010 came into force, such vac ancy has to be filled up on the basis of the earlier Rules of 2000 and not on th e basis of the Rules of 2010. He has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to pay scale of Rs.1475-3825/- as Senior Assistant in terms of recommendations dated 15.7.1999 and 14.7.1999. He further submits that letter dated 14.7.1999 wa s issued in view of the resolution of the Board of Directors and the Deputy Dire ctor, Handloom and Textiles, on whose authority the order was issued, was functi oning as Secretary of ARTFED and therefore, same is binding. However, they were denied the said pay scale. That apart, one S. Devi, who held the post of Senior Assistant was enjoying pay scale of Rs.1475-3825/-. However, when the petitione rs were promoted to the said post as Senior Assistant, most arbitrarily, they we re offered pay scale of Rs.1285-3075/- and as such, a suitable direction may be issued by this court to make payment of salary to the petitioners in the pay sca le of Rs.1475-3825/-. He relies on the following decisions in support of his cas e- (i) B.L.Gupta and anr. -vs- M.C.D., reported in (1998) 9 SCC 223, (ii) Y. V. Rangaiah and ors. -vs- J. Sreenivasa Rao and ors., reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 , (iii) Dr. K. Ramulu and anr. -vs- Dr. S. Surya Prakash Rao and ors., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 59 and (iv) S.Prafullo Singh and anr. -vs- State of Manipur and ors., reported in 2010 (2) GLT 794. 18. Mr. S N Sarma, learned senior counsel for ARTFED submits that under the Rules of 2000, the petitioners did not have the requisite qualification for bein g promoted as Assistant Manager. It is submitted by him that under the Rules of 2000, the organizational set up had some deficiency and furthermore, there were hardly a few persons who could have been considered for promotion to the next hi gher post as most of the employees did not have the requisite qualification of t he promotional posts prescribed under the Rules of 2000. It was in this context that the Board of Directors had considered that organizational structure had to be revamped and eligibility qualification lowered so as to facilitate promotion of existing employees. Learned senior counsel submits that Smti. Bibha Neog did not have the qualification prescribed for either the post of Assistant Manager, Exhibition or the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel). Even for the post of Br anch Manager, (Exhibition & Publicity), she did not have requisite qualification under the Rules of 2000. Smti. Dalimi Hazarika also did not have the qualificat ion for the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts), besides being not in the feede r cadre. She also did not have the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel). It is submitted by him that promotion has to be given in accordance with Rules and an employee does not have any inherent and vested right of promotion but only has a right for consideration of promoti on in accordance with the Rules in force. 19. The learned senior counsel submits that under the Rules of 2000, the pet itioners were not at all entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager and such prayer of the writ petitioners is absolutely misconce ived. It is submitted by him that a Senior Assistant and Junior Accountant with 10 years of service is now made eligible to be promoted as Senior Branch Manager under the Rules of 2010. Learned senior counsel submits that there is no infirm ity in the order dated 5.6.2010. With regard to the claim for enhanced pay scale , learned senior counsel submits that the Board of Directors of ARTFED, which is the competent authority, had not approved the recommendation made by the Deputy Director, Handloom and Textiles and as such, no direction is called for to gran t enhanced pay scale. Furthermore, it is submitted by learned senior counsel tha t when the pay scale of Rs.1475-3825/- was not given to Smti. Dalimi Hazarika, s he had filed a representation demanding the same and thereafter, she was allowed to work as Junior Accountant in the scale of pay as mentioned in the order date d 13.4.1995. To that extent, there is suppression of material facts, learned sen ior counsel submits. 20. He has submitted that in view of the consideration of the case of the pe titioners for promotion, W.P.(C) No. 3826 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No. 4157 of 2008 h ave become infructuous. The learned senior counsel further submits that there is no merit in the other writ petitions and the same are also liable to be dismiss ed. He also relies on the decision in (i) Dr. K. Ramulu (supra) and in the case of (ii) State of Punjab and ors. -vs- Arun Kumar Aggarwal and ors., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 402. I have heard the learned counsel for appearing parties and have perused 21. the materials available on record. I have also perused the records made availabl e by Mr. Sarma. There is no representation on behalf of the private respondents. Bearing in mind the way in which prayers are formulated by the petitione 22. rs, it will be necessary to find out the essence of the reliefs prayed for. In t he writ petitions filed in the year 2008, it appears that the petitioners feel t hat they have been arbitrarily deprived of their promotion to the post of Assist ant Manager as promotion was given to many others without adherence to the quali fications. Accordingly, they have prayed for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. Additionally, while Smti. Dalimi Hazarika has sought for direction for grant of enhanced pay scale, Smti. Bibha Neog prays for proper salary. In the co ntext of the cases, it can be taken that she is also praying for enhanced pay sc ale. In the writ petitions filed in the year 2010, it appears that the petitione rs primarily question their promotion to the posts of Senior Branch Manager by t he order dated 5.6.2010 and thus, pray for a direction for their promotion to th e post of Assistant Manager from the dates when such posts were available. Promo tion of respondent nos. 6 and 7 as Assistant Manager (Marketing) and Assistant M anager (Personnel), respectively, by the said order is also questioned. Quashing of continuation of respondent no.8 as Assistant Manager (Publicity) is also pra yed for. 23. In Y. V. Rangaiah (supra), the Apex Court had held that vacancy in the p romotional post occurring prior to amendment of the Rules has to be filled up in accordance with the un-amended Rules. In that case, under the extant Rules, a l ist of approved candidates had to be drawn as on September 1, 1976 for making ap pointment to the Grade of Sub-Registrar by transfer. It was not so done and afte r considerable delay, it was drawn up in the year 1977 when an amendment to the Rules had been incorporated, whereby the original Rule providing for considerati on of appointment of Lower Division Clerks as Sub-Registrar, Grade - II was done away with, thereby adversely affecting the interest of Lower Division Clerks wh o would have got promotion, had the list of approved candidates been prepared as enjoined by the Rules. It is in this context, the Apex Court held that the vaca ncy which occurred prior to the amended Rules, would be guided by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. 24. In B.L. Gupta (supra), relying upon, amongst others, Y.V. Rangaiah (supr a), the Apex Court had reiterated that vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amende d Rules. 25. In K. Ramulu (supra), on which both Mr. Baruah and Mr. Sarma have placed reliance in support of their respective argument, the question that had fallen for consideration was whether a person eligible under the un-amended Rules, in v iew of a conscious decision taken by the Government not to fill in vacancy till the amendment of the existing Rules, he was entitled to be considered for promot ion in pre-amendment vacancies in accordance with un-amended Rules. The Apex Cou rt had held no vested right accrues for being considered for promotion, in accor dance with the repealed Rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Govern ment which was found justified on the materials placed before the court. In S. Prafullo Singh (supra), the petitioners were qualified under the e 26. xisting recruitment rules and there were promotional vacancies. Subsequently, ne w rules were framed which reduced promotional prospects. In absence of any consc ious decision of the State not to fill up vacancies by following the old recruit ment rules, this court directed filling up the vacancies in terms of the recruit ment rule which was holding the field when the vacancies had arisen. 27. In Arun Kumar Aggarwal (supra), vacancies were available when the existi ng Rules of 1947 were applicable, but a conscious decision was taken to postpone filling up of vacancies till the new Rules of 2004 became effective with effect from 9.7.2004 on the rationale that the old Rules did not have any quota earmar ked for promotion of diploma-holders while the new Rules had such quota. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the Apex Court had, while upholding decision of the Go vernment to fill up the vacancies under the Rules of 2004, rejected the contenti on that as vacancies arose during the time when the old Rules were in force, the y must be filled up by applying (cid:28)relaxation clause (cid:29) of the old Rules. 28. From the tenor of pleadings of the writ petitioners, and the argument ad vanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, there is no mistaking of the fact that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3826 of 2008 seeks promotion to t he post of Assistant Manager based on her experience in Exhibition and Publicity Section and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4157 of 2008 seeks promotion to the p ost of Assistant Manager based on her experience in Accounts Section. The minutes of the Selection Committee for promotion of the Employees sh 29. ow that Selection Committee held its sittings on various dates from September, 2 008 to April, 2009. Before going to the promotion process in detail, the Commit tee had observed that the existing Service Rules of 2000 of ARTFED needed modif ication according to the qualification, experience etc. of the existing staff of ARTFED. It was observed that in most of the promotional cases, requirement of q ualification was shown higher than that of existing qualification of most of the employees. It was also observed that keeping in view the qualification prescrib ed in the service Rule for giving promotion, Selection Committee had decided to consider the promotion of those employees only who were in possession of minimum qualification of pass in Pre-University or HSSLC. In respect of posts of Branch Manager (Exhibition) and Internal Auditor, it was noted as under: (cid:28)Branch Manager (Exhibition): Vacancy -1 The qualification required for promotion to the post of Branch Manager (Exhibiti on) is Graduate in any discipline having Degree or Diploma in Public Relation or Mass Communication. Smti. Bibha Neog, Senior Assistant (Exhibition) is working in the Exhibition Section. Her qualification is Master Degree in Arts. The Commi ttee recommended her name for the post of Branch Manager (Exhibition) provided t he BOD condone the qualifications of Mass Communication or Public Relation, cons idering her long experience in the Exhibition Section. (cid:29) (cid:28)Internal Auditor: Vacancy-1 The qualification and experience required for the promotion to the above post is Degree in Commerce with practical experience for 5 years. Smti. Dalimi Deka Haz arika, Sr. Asstt. now looking after the duties of Jr. Accountant. Though her qu alification is graduation in Arts, the Committee recommended her name for promot ion to the post of Internal Auditor considering her long experience in Accounts and Audits Section. (cid:29) The meeting of the Board of Directors dated 23.6.2009 under Resolution N 30. o.5 discussed the report submitted by the Selection Committee and as recommended , decided to amend the Rules and resolved to take up the matter of promotion onl y after such amendment. The Managing Director was also entrusted to take necessa ry steps with regard to the letter issued by Department of Handloom & Textiles i ndicating necessity of obtaining approval of Administrative Department as well a s Finance Department in matters of appointment, promotion and payment of salary in enhanced scale. Under the Rules of 2000, post of Assistant Manager is available under th 31. e Finance and Accounts Department, Personnel (establishment) Department, Exhibit ion and Publicity Department. Post of Assistant Manager in all these departments is in Class-II Service. The qualification prescribed for Assistant Manager in F inance and Accounts Department is B.Com with CA/ICWA/B.Com with 10 years experie nce. Qualification prescribed for Assistant Manager in Exhibition and Publicity Department is Graduate in any discipline with degree/diploma in Public Relation or Mass Communication. Branch Manager or any other equivalent post is the feeder post for the post of Assistant Manager in Exhibition and Publicity Department. Qualification prescribed for the re-designated post of Superintendent as Assist ant Manager in Personnel (Establishment Department) is Graduate in any disciplin e having experience in Personnel Management. 32. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have not disclosed their educati onal qualifications. It has not also been argued that they fulfill the qualifica tion prescribed for Assistant Manager in any of the aforesaid departments. If un der the extant Rules, the petitioners do not have the qualification prescribed f or the post of Assistant Manager, it is not conceivable how the petitioners can claim and assert that they must be considered for promotion to the post of Assis tant Manager and that they had been deprived of legitimate promotion to the said post. The submission that their chances of promotion became bleak in view of in duction of respondents no. 6, 7 and 8 also has no substance as the petitioners c ould not have been promoted to the post of Assistant Manager under the Rules of 2000 because of lack of essential qualification. Assuming someone had been given undue benefit de hors the Rules, then also it cannot be countenanced that becau se of wrong committed in another case, the petitioners must also be given the sa me benefit. At any rate, as on today, Smti. Indrani Lahkar is holding a post low er than the petitioners. No materials have been placed to justify setting aside of promotion of respondent nos. 6 and 7, who were admittedly occupying higher p osts than the writ petitioners, to the post of Assistant Manager by the order d ated 5.6.2010. There is no legal basis for the claim made by the writ petitioner s. It is no body’s case that they were eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager under the Rules of 2000 and under the Rules of 2010 , their promotional avenue to the post of Assistant Manager has been scuttled to t heir detriment and prejudice. Although the vacancy had arisen when the Rules of 2000 was in force, admittedly, the petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility c riteria and therefore, there was no question of their suffering any prejudice. T he petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3826 of 2008 did not even fulfill the eligibility c riteria for promotion to the existing higher post of Branch Manager (Exhibition) . Same is the case with the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4157 of 2008. She was not eligible for the next existing higher post of Internal Auditor as she did n ot have the degree in commerce. Such lack of qualification was not an isolated c ase as argued by the learned senior counsel for ARTFED. Apparently, employees di d not have specialized qualifications although the Rules of 2000 had prescribed such qualifications in the posts in Class-I and Class-II. Under the Rules of 201 0, even HSSLC passed employees are made eligible up to the post of Assistant Man ager. Although an exercise was undertaken for promotion under the existing Rules , in view of ground realities, as recommended by the Selection Committee, the Bo ard of Directors had taken a decision to amend the Rules, not to deprive the exi sting employees from getting promotion but to facilitate their promotion in acco rdance with law. No prejudice is caused to the writ petitioners, who are now pro moted to the post of Senior Branch Manager in terms of the Rules of 2010. In the perspective and background of the aforesaid facts, the order dated 27.2.2009, w hich was passed on the basis of the prayer made by the petitioners claiming thei r promotion to the post of Assistant Manager, does not help the cause of the pet itioners in any manner. The judgments in the cases of B. L. Gupta (supra), Y. V . Rangaiah (supra) and Prafullo Singh (supra), according to the considered opini on of the court, will not be attracted in the facts of these cases and the ratio laid down in the cases of Dr. K. Ramulu (supra) and Arun Kumar Aggarwal (supra) will be applicable in view of decision of the Board of Directors to defer promo tion till amendment of the existing Rules, due to compelling necessity, is made. Rs. 1285-3075/- p.m. plus other allowances, as admissible. Smti. 33. Smti. Dalimi Hazarika, Smti. Bibha Neog and another person were allowed to officiate as Senior Assistant by an order dated 13.4.1995 in the pay scale of Dalimi H azarika submitted a representation praying for pay scale of Rs. 1475-3825/- on t he basis of pay scale of Senior Assistant of the Government of Assam. Thereafter , by an order dated 3.6.1995, she was allowed to work as Junior Accountant in th e scale of pay as mentioned in order dated 13.4.1995. The note of the Selection Committee shows her designation as Senior Assistant. It was also noted therein t hat she was allowed to work as Junior Accountant. Because of not mentioning of t he said order in the writ petition, it is not possible to accept the argument of Mr. Sarma that there is suppression of material fact. 34. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that letters dated 14.7.199 9 and 15.7.1999, on which much reliance has been placed by Mr. Baruah, authorise enhanced scale of pay. The report dated 15.7.1999 is only a recommendation and it itself says that the pay scale mentioned therein may be considered. It is the categorical stand of the respondents that the enhanced pay scale has not been a pproved and accepted by the Board. In all probability there is typing error in Annexure- D (1) of W.P.(C) No. 4157 of 2008 as the said letter shows the date 14 .7.1999 in the top while at the bottom of the letter, date is shown as 15.9.199 9. 15.9.1999 appears to be the correct date as the report dated 15.7.1999, which is annexed as Annexure- D (2) of W.P.(C) No. 4157 of 2008, is enclosed thereto. Merely because a report is submitted pursuant to Resolution of the Board of Dir ectors, it cannot be contended that the same is binding on all concerned. The re port has to be approved and accepted by the Board of Directors and also possibly by the Administrative Department of ARTFED as well as by the Finance Department of the Government of Assam, as the Resolution No. 5 of the meeting of the Board of Directors dated 23.6.2009 seems to suggest. 35. s and accordingly, the same are dismissed. No costs. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in these writ petition