Hansaria. J. — The 14 (fourteen) petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have a common grievance and so these petitions have been heard together and a common judgment is being passed to cover all these cases. 2. The petitioners are graduate, and they have been appointed as Constables. As per the Police Department, Manipur (Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police) Recruitment Rules, 1983, hereinafter the 1983-Rules, 75% of the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police were reserved for the promotees and the remaining 25% for direct recruits. As per the aforesaid Recruitment Rules, out of the 75% of posts reserved for promotees, 35% were further reserved for those who were Graduate Constables having three years' regular service as Constable and Graduate Head Constables having similar length of service who were further qualified by passing the f re-Promo­tion Cadre Course of four months' duration prescribed by the Inspector General of Police. Many Graduate Constables/Head Constables who had fulfilled the aforesaid conditions were promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspectors. This would appear from Annexures-A/6,A/7,A/8 and A/9 which are dated 12.4.84. 611.84. 10.1.83 and 28.185, respectively. One Shri ML Amuyaima Singh (SC) was also so promoted vide Annexure -A/l0 dated 29.6.86. By Notification 6.10.86 a new set of Rules for anointment to the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Were framed and as per these Rules the percentage reserved for Graduate Constables/ Head Constables was reduced to 10%. By Notification of 8th June, 1987, another set of Recruitment Rules were framed for appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. These Recruitment Rules provide that the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police shall be filled up by promotion to the extent of 10% from amongst the Head Constables; the remaining 90% were to be filled up from Head Constables having passed Pre-Promotion Selection Test prescri­bed by the Inspector General of Police and having regular service as mentioned in the Recruitment Rules of 1987. On the same date Police Department Manipur [ Naik (Civil Police) ] Recruitment Rules, 1987, were framed which made available the posts of Naik to the Constables. 3. The effect of the aforesaid amendment or framing of the Rules relating to appointment to the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and Naik is that though at one point of time, namely, as per Recruitment Rules of 1983 and 1986. 3. The effect of the aforesaid amendment or framing of the Rules relating to appointment to the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and Naik is that though at one point of time, namely, as per Recruitment Rules of 1983 and 1986. Graduate Constables could be promoted straightway to the posts Of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, the Recruitment Rules of 1987 allowed them promotion to the posts of Naik only. 4. The submission of Shri K. Chonjan Singh is that the cases of the petitioners are to be determined by the Recruitment Rules Of 1983 inasmuch as there were a number of vacancies in the posts' of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to accommodate all the peti­tioners. Not only this, the learned counsel States that many Graduate Constables who were situated in the same position as the petitioner are, have been promoted to the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, as mentioned earlier. The contention, therefore, is that by denying promotion to the petitioners to the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police despite there being a large number of vacancies in that post, there was hostile discrimination so far as they are concerned. By referring to Y. V. Rangaiah vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao, AIR 1983 SC 852 , Shri Singh submits that the posts which were lying vacant during the years 1983 to 1986 had to be filled up in accordance with the Rules which were in vogue, when the vacancies had existed. Learned counsel has drawn our attention in particular to what has been stated in para 9 of this judgment, wherein the following observations find place :- "The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended ruled would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not on the Statewide basis and therefore, there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules”. But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules”. In view of what has been stated in this decision, there should be no doubt in anybody's mind that the cases of the petitioners would be governed by the Rules which were in existence when the vacancies had occurred. As it is the case of the petitioners which has not been rebutted by the respondents by filing any affidavit-in-opposition that at the relevant time a large number of vacan­cies were there in the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police throughout the State, we have no doubt in out mind that the petitioners should not have been denied their promotion which had become due to them by force of what was stated in the concerned Recruitment Rules of 1983. Though it has been contended by Sari Saikia, learned Government Advocate, Manipur, that in View of the Recruitment Rules concerning Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and Naiks as framed in 1987, the petitioners are not entitled to be considered for promotion to the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, we would say that the Recruitment Rules of 1987 shall have no application to those posts which were lying vacant before the 1987 Recruitment Rules were framed. 5. In view of what is stated above, we are satisfied about the rightful claim of the petitioner and we accordingly direct the respondents to consider the cases of promotion of the petitioners in the light of the above Recruitment Rules which were holding the field when the vacancies ware existing. For this purpose, the required consideration by a duly constituted Department Promotion Committee shall be made within a period of three months from today. While considering the cases of these petitioners, it would be borne in mind that if there were vacancies in the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police prior to the framing of the 1987-Rules, the cases would be examined in the light of the Rules which were holding the field when the vacancies had occurred. 6. In the result, the petitions are allowed as aforesaid. Sangma, J. — I agree.