JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) PETITIONER No. 1, M. P. Class III Employees Association is a registered Association, whereas petitioners 2 to 14 are its members, petitioners 2 to 14, at the time of filing of this writ petition, were working as Instructors. Their grievance in the writ petition is that they have not been promoted to the post of technical Assistants, even though they were entitled to be so promoted. A prayer has also been made in the writ petition for declaring the M. P. Education department Technical Branch Class III (Non-Ministerial) Recruitment Rules 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as ultra vires. ( 2. ) IN support of the submission that the Rules are ultra vires, it has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners were entitled to be promoted prior to the coming into force of the Rules and since the Rules have prescribed the qualifications for promotion which most of the petitioners are not possessed of, the Rules have the effect of hampering the chances of promotion of the petitioners and consequently, they are ultra vires. Suffice it to say, so far as this submission is concerned, that the Rules have been framed by the Governor of M. P. in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. Consequently, it cannot be said that the Rules which constitute delegated legislation, are bad because of lack of legislative competence. ( 3. ) THE other recognised ground on the basis of which validity of the Rules could be challenged is that they infringe any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part iii of the Constitution. No provision has been brought to our notice which may be said to be in violation of any of the fundamental rights. The Rules cannot, therefore, be held to be ultra vires, even on this ground. ( 4. ) THE Rules also do not suffer from vires of colourable exercise of powers, nor do we find anything in the Rules which can be termed as arbitrary. ( 5. The Rules cannot, therefore, be held to be ultra vires, even on this ground. ( 4. ) THE Rules also do not suffer from vires of colourable exercise of powers, nor do we find anything in the Rules which can be termed as arbitrary. ( 5. ) AS regards the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that these Rules have the effect of hampering the chances of promotion of most of the petitioners and have thereby the effect of taking away their vested right of being promoted under the old Rules, suffice it to say that it is a misnomer to call the right to be promoted as a vested right. The plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is not res integra and is concluded by various decisions including the decisions of the Supreme Court. ( 6. ) IN Mohammad Shujat Ali and others vs. Union of India and others AIR 1974 SC 1631 , it was held by the Supreme Court in para 15 of the report, relying on its earlier decision in State of Mysore vs. G. B. Purohit C. A. No. 2281 of 1965 dated 25-1-1967, that though a right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, mere chances of promotion are not. A rule which merely affects chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition of service. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 259 . ( 7. ) IN N. Rudraradhva vs. State of Mysore and others, AIR 1961 Mysore 247, it was held by a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court that a Government servant cannot, as of right, claim any promotion on the ground that the departmental examination which he should pass in accordance with the relevant Government orders, has been passed by him. Among the well known attributes of public service, the one that is least subject to exception is that no employee can claim as of right a promotion from one position to another unless he can do so under a statutory provision or an enforceable condition of service. A variety of considerations govern the promotion of an employee, none of which alone can render an employee suitable for promotion. A variety of considerations govern the promotion of an employee, none of which alone can render an employee suitable for promotion. Ordinarily, it is for the State or the promoting authority to determine such suitability after an assessment of all relevant considerations, such as seniority, competence, rectitude and antecedent official records, none of which is less important than the other, for the preservation of purity and efficiency in public service. ( 8. ) IN State of Mysore vs. C. R. Seshadri and others, AIR 1974 SC460, it was held that the power to promote an officer belongs to the Executive and the judicial power may control or review Government action, but cannot extend to acting as if it were the Executive. The Court may issue directions, but leave it to the Executive to carry it out. The judiciary cannot promote or demote officials, but may demolish a bad order of Government or order reconsideration on correct principles. ( 9. ) THE legal principles which emerge on a conspectus of the authorities referred to above are: (i) A right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service; mere chances of promotion are not. (ii) A Rule which merely affects chances of promotion, cannot be regarded as varying a condition of service. (iii) No employee can claim as of right a promotion from one position to another. (iv) If there are statutory rules, promotion can be made only in accordance with the said rules. In other words, only such of the employees would be entitled to promotion who fulfil the requirements provided for in that behalf in the statutory rules. (v) Even if an employee is found to be entitled for being considered for promotion inasmuch as he fulfils the prescribed qualifications, the Court cannot pass an order promoting him, but can only direct the Executive to consider his case for promotion in accordance with the Rules framed in this behalf. ( 10. ) CONSEQUENTLY, even if what has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted (that prior to the enforcement of the Rules, the petitioners had a chance of promotion) there is no manner of doubt that (the Rules affecting that chance of promotion could have been framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Art. 309 of the Constitution. This would not amount to varying the conditions of service) as held by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Rules cannot be held to be ultra vires on the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that these Rules have the effect of hampering the chances of promotion of some of the petitioners. The challenge to the validity of the Rules, therefore, fails. ( 11. ) IT was then urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners 2, 3, 6 and 13 fulfil the requisite qualifications contemplated by the Rules for promotion and yet their cases for promotion have not been considered. In so far as this submission is concerned, it may be pointed out that return has been filed or behalf of the respondents and in para 5 of the return, it has been stated that petitioner No. 2 M. S. Das has retired with effect from 28. 2. 1986. In this view of the matter, the case of petitioner No. 2 obviously cannot now be considered for promotion. ( 12. ) IN that post upto 31. 12. 1965. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, after the said date, he was transferred from Raipur to Jabalpur by an order, copy whereof has been produced before us by learned counsel for the petitioners today. Its perusal indicates that petitioner No. 13 was, by virtue of the said order, transferred and appointed as Instructor in the Government Engineering College, Jabalpur against a vacant post. This order of transfer seems to have been passed on the basis of an application dated 1. 11. 1965 made by petitioner No. 13 himself as is apparent from the endorsement made at the bottom of the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this connection brought to our notice that even though petitioner No. 13 was holding the promoted post of Technical Assistant at Raipur, he was transferred to Jabalpur as an Instructor on his own request for personal reasons. This being so, it is not open to petitioner No. 13 to assert that his case for promotion as Technical Assistant has not been considered by the respondents. This being so, it is not open to petitioner No. 13 to assert that his case for promotion as Technical Assistant has not been considered by the respondents. On the other hand, the correct position is that not only his case was considered, he was also promoted, but he voluntarily gave up the promoted post and preferred to be appointed on the lower post of Instructor so as to enable him to remain at Jabalpur. ( 13. ) IN so far as petitioners 3 and 6, namely J. P. Vishwakarma and Sewaram vishwakarma respectively are concerned, in Annexure R-2 to the Return, it has been stated that their cases were considered, but they were not found to possess any of the requisite qualifications contemplated by the Rules. It has, further been stated in Annexure R-3 that an amendment in the Rules was under contemplation and a decision was also contemplated to be taken in regard to the qualifications which may be said to be equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the Rules. Apparently, therefore, if the Rules are amended and the qualifications which the petitioners 3 and 6 claim to be having are found to be equivalent to the qualifications prescribed under the Rules, consequent on their amendment of the rules, they will become entitled to be considered for promotion on the basis of the amended Rules. We hope that needful in this behalf shall be done expeditiously so that the employees who may become entitled on account of the equivalent qualifications, may get the benefit of those Rules. ( 14. ) LASTLY it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that prior to the enforcement of the Rules, some employees who were even juniors to the petitioners, had been promoted and consequently the action of not promoting the petitioners at that stage, was discriminatory. In our opinion, it will serve no useful purpose to go into this question at this stage inasmuch as after framing of the Rules, direction regarding consideration of the case of the petitioners for promotion, can be issued only if they are possessed of the requisite qualifications prescribed under the rules. Today they cannot be considered for promotion merely on the ground that they were entitled to be considered for promotion prior to the commencement of the rules. ( 15. ) NO other point has been pressed. ( 16. Today they cannot be considered for promotion merely on the ground that they were entitled to be considered for promotion prior to the commencement of the rules. ( 15. ) NO other point has been pressed. ( 16. ) IN the result, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed.