JUDGMENT 1. - All the above writ petitions involve identical questions of fact and law and, therefore, are being decided by one common order. Even though in regard to appointment and certain promotions made involve different dates, but the facts are being taken so far as common points are concerned, from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 268/89. 2. It is the common question of fact involved in all the cases that the petitioners were initially recruited as Lower Division Clerks and were promoted as Upper Division Clerks from different dates and were so confirmed in the same cadre of U.D.C. It is also common fact that the petitioners had passed graduation and obtained the degree in different years. It is also the common factor that initially there were no rules applicable in regard to promotions from the post of U.D.C. to higher cadre and it was only in the year 1957 that vide rules called Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short the rules) for the first time, the rules had been framed for regularising the appointments, confirmations and promotions to different cadres and thus were so made applicable to different cadres including to that of the petitioners. 3. It was for the first time that it was decided by way of executive instructions dated 27.11.1956 vide letter No. 1573/FR/56 by the Government of Rajasthan that certain incumbents of the post of Section Incharge and Inspectors who satisfy one of the conditions were to be deemed to be eligible for officiating appointments as supervisors in the grade of Rs.150-300 and the qualifications prescribed for such incumbents for the post of Supervisor was graduate with three years service on the post of U.D.C. or Non-graduate (atleast a Matriculate) with three years service as U.D.C. with a total service of seven years. The instructions had been attached along with the copy of the writ petition with written statement. After issuance of the aforesaid instructions of 1956, the rules had been framed in the year 1957 and no provision was made in the rules as to what should happen to those incumbents of the post i.e. the Section Incharge or Inspectors who had been so promoted as Supervisors and, therefore, the Government had decided on 23.9.1972 that such incumbents promoted to the post of Supervisor shall not be reverted and their appointment should be regularised after adopting necessary procedure. It was further decided that they would be confirmed on the post subsequent to the incumbent being subject to suitable screening. Instructions of 1956 and letter have been attached as Annexures R-1 and R-2 to the writ petition No. 1503/83. 4. Because of the reason that certain persons were effected to their prejudice, instruction Annexure R-1 was challenged by filing a civil suit by one Shri Brij Mohan Pareek for a declaration that Annexure R-1 or any subsequent instruction in this regard could not have been issued. The civil suit was ultimately decreed and permanent injunction was granted and the civil court had mandated to the State that the promotion to the post of Supervisor are to be made from amongst those Assistants in accordance with the Rules and not by any other instructions specially Annexure R-1. The Civil Court observed as under "The injunction is to stay permanently. The suit stands decreed as there does not survive in the opinion of this court any other issue to be ascertained. Costs made easy. The non-petitioners defendants are bound down to undertake the promotions to the post of a Supervisor from amongst those of the Assistants in accordance with the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 alone till they hold good and not by the letters dated 1.10.1956 and 27th November 1956 if at all any promotions are to be done. Let a decree sheet accordingly be prepared in the suit. sd/- Jas Karan Dasani 12.7.69. 5. The above said decree was upheld by the Additional District Judge Tonk vide order dated 8.8.1972 in appeal and the civil appellate court held as under "The pay scales of Superintendent Grade II is 150-10-200- EB-10-250-EB-12.5-300. This pay scale has been given in Rajasthan Civil Services Ratioinalisation of pay scales Rules. The commulative effect of the above consideration is that the post of supervisor falls in the category of posts mentioned in rule 6 of Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 by virtue of note appended with it and consequently with coming into force of these rules by virtue of rule 2 all the then existing rules 1957 stand superseeded and th? Director of Insurance cannot act upon the letter No.F. 7(13) FR/56/3708 dated the 1st Oct. 1956. 5A. Director of Insurance cannot act upon the letter No.F. 7(13) FR/56/3708 dated the 1st Oct. 1956. 5A. The second appeal against the aforesaid decision of the civil court was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 4.1.1973 in RSA No. 646/72. 6. The decree in the civil suit, appellate order as well as the order of the High Court is attached as Annexure R- 3, R-4 and R-5 in the civil writ Petition No. 1503/83. 7. The result of the civil decree was that the promotion to the post of Supervisor could only be made from amongst the Assistants and not from amongst the U.D.C.s. This was the position, when ultimately faced with such anamolous situation the State amended the rules of 1957 vide notification dated 2.2.1973 and introduced amendment in rule 6 and 7 in 1957 rules and following was inserted : '(1) In sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6, below. the entry relating to 'Superintendents Grll the following new entry shall be and be deemed always to have been added, "Supervisor" and (2) After clause (3) of the proviso to Rule 7, the following clauses shall be and be deemed always to have been added. (4) The posts of supervisors in the general Cadre of the State Insurance Department shall be filled by promotion within that cadre from amongst those who are graduates of any University established by law in India or of a Foreign University, declared by Government to be equivalent to a decree of University established by law in India with three years service as upper division clerk, and (5) The person holding posts of section Incharge and Inspectors in the State Insurance Department immediately before the initial creation of the post of Supervisor in the said department, shall however, be eligible to be appointed as Supervisor, if they are matriculates with three years service as upper division clerk and with a total service of atleast seven years (excluding class IV services) or possesses the qualifications and experience as specified in clause (4)." 8. As a matter of fact the instructions Annexure R-1 were brought in the shape of statutory rules with an addition that the post of Supervisor in general Cadre of the State Insurance Department was to be filled up by way of promotion within cadre from amongst those who are graduates from any University and had worked with three years service as U.D.C. 9. It was for the first time that in the year 1967, a further amendment was made in Rule 6 of the Rules of 1957 when post of Assistants were also created in the State Insurance Department. Rule 15(4)(A) prescribes the qualification of Assistants to the effect that no person was to be appointed as Assistant unless he had served for 10 years in the department including five years as U.D.C. 10. Another amendment was brought in the year 1978 (hereinafter called as 'the amendment of 1978') to the effect that the persons holding the posts of Section Incharge and Inspectors in the State Insurance Department immediately before the initial creation of the posts of Supervisor in the said department. Vide notification dated 5.10.1978 whereby the channel of promotion was changed i.e. promotion to the post of Supervisor was to be made from the post of Assistants. The petitioners have challenged such amendment of 5th October 1978. 11. Again in the year 1979 sub-Rule 11-A was added to Rule 26-B in the Rules of 1957 which reads as under : Sub-Rule No. 11-A of Rule No. 26D of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 11-A. If in any subsequent year, after promulgation of these Rules, vacancies relating to any earlier year are determined under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule mention of Col. 3 of the Schedule which are required to be filled by promotion, the departmental promotion committee shall consider the case of all such persons, who would have been eligible in the year to which the vacancies relate, irrespective of the year in which the meeting of the D.P.C. is held and such promotion shall be governed by the Rules in force at the time the meeting of the D.P.C. is held." 12. After the above said amendments, D.P.C. was constituted and certain posts were filled up by way of promotion either to the post of Assistants or to Supervisors from the respective cadres of U.D.C. and Assistants under the Rules. 13. After the above said amendments, D.P.C. was constituted and certain posts were filled up by way of promotion either to the post of Assistants or to Supervisors from the respective cadres of U.D.C. and Assistants under the Rules. 13. All the petitioners had come up in the respective writ petitions that because of the reason that no year-wise determination of vacancies had been made as was required under Rule 9 and Rule 26-D, 11-A and, therefore, their rights were pre-judicially effected and they should have been promoted to the posts of Supervisor if not immediately after three years of passing of their graduations and having acquiring the experience of three years against the post of U.D.C. but in any case after amendment of 1973 rules when the post of Supervisor was incorporated in the rules itself. It is stated that non- filling up of the posts pertaining to the period ranging from 1969 to 1978 was not a bonafide and had the petitioners been promoted, in that situation they would have obtained the higher posts much earlier than the promotion now effected in their favour. It is the case of the petitioners that it was the mandate for the State to have determined the vacancies year-wise and even though the D.P.C. had been constituted after 1980, but the promotion to the post of Supervisors ought to have been awarded to the respective petitioners when the post had fallen vacant or created in the department in the year of determination. 14. It is necessary that the factual dates of appointments and promotions in respect of each of the petitioner where-ever available in the writ petitions be quoted. 15. In case of Umesh Kumar Chaturvedi, Civil writ petition No. 268/89, Mr. Chaturvedi was appointed as L.D.C. in July 1956, promoted as U.D.C. on 1.1.1962, confirmed as U.D.C. in June 1970, he passed his graduation in 1972, promoted as office Assistant in the year 1981 and again promoted from the post of Assistant to the Supervisor in the year 1983. He got the next promotion of Assistant Director in June 1985 and superannuated on 31.10.1985. 16. He got the next promotion of Assistant Director in June 1985 and superannuated on 31.10.1985. 16. In the case of Civil Writ Petition of Radhey Shyam Civil Writ Petition No. 1504/83 he was appointed as L.D.C. on 16.7.1955, promoted in August 1963 as U.D.C. and confirmed as such in June 1970, passed graduation in the year 1977, promoted as Assistant in the year 1981, promoted as Supervisor in December 1982, promoted as Assistant Director in 1992 and retired on superannuation as Assistant Director in June 1995. 17. Umesh Kumar Chaturvedi had filed two writ petitions Nos. 1503/83 and 268/89. Redhey Shyam had also filed two writ petition bearing Nos. 1504/83 and 268/89. 18. In Civil writ petition No. 2028/83, Smt. Florance Adwani was appointed as L.D.C. in 1956. She was post- graduate at the time of appointment, promoted as U.D.c. on 1.1.1962, confirmed as such on 16.8.1963. She was promoted as Office Assistant on 31.3.1979 and Supervisor from 1.1.1981 and ultimately superannuated on higher posts. 19. Ravi Sunder Dwivedi writ petition No. 1382/83 was appointed as L.D.C. on 9.2.1955, promoted as U.D.C. on 1.12.1957, confirmed as such on 1.11.1962, promoted as Supervisor in the year 1968 but promotion held in abeyance because of pendency of suit, promoted to the post of Office Asstt. on 20.10.1918, confirmed as such in the year 1982, promoted as Supervisor on 1.1.1981 and now stands superannuated in higher post. 20. Paras Kumar joined as L.D.C. on 3.3.1951, promoted as U.D.C. and confirmed as U.D.C. w.e.f. 1.11.1962, was graduate, promoted to the post of Asstt. Supervisor on 1.12.1967, promoted to post of Supervisor on adhoc basis in May 1969, but order was held in abeyance because of pendency of civil suit. Promoted to the post of Asstt. on 5.10.1978 confirmed as such in June 1981 and promoted to the post of Supervisor on 1.1.1982 and ultimately retired as Assistant Director. 21. From the narration of the above said facts, it is very clear that all the petitioners were initially appointed as L.D.Cs and later on promoted on various dates as U.D.Cs. It is also admitted fact that right upto 1973 there were no statutory rules for effecting promotions to the post of Supervisors from amongst the U.D.Cs. having three years experience and qualification of graduate. It is also admitted fact that right upto 1973 there were no statutory rules for effecting promotions to the post of Supervisors from amongst the U.D.Cs. having three years experience and qualification of graduate. The petitioners relied on a circular Annexure R-1 as reproduced above, from the bare reading of that circular dated 27.11.1956 it is clear that circular related to incumbents of the post of Section Incharge and Inspectors who satisfied any one of the conditions mentioned therein. The circular reads as under : Copy of letter No. 1573/FR/56, dated 27.11.1956 From the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan Finance Department, Jaipur. Sub : Selection of Supervisors. With reference to your letter No. 222/C/Est. dated the 19th October 1956 and the subject referred to above, I am directed to say that for the present only such of the present incumbents of the post of Section Incharge and Inspectors who satisfy any one of the following conditions be eligible for officiating appointment as Supervisors in the grade of 150-10-220-EB-10-250-EB-12.5-300 1. Graduate with 3 years service on U.D.C. 2. Non-graduate (at least a matriculate) with 3 years service as U.D.C. and with a total service of 7 years (excluding Class IV Service). 22. None of the petitioners were holding the post or were ever incumbents of the post of Section Incharge or the Inspectors at the time circular was issued or even subsequent to that at any given time. Therefore, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner of the circular. 23. However, in the year 1973 the rules were amended to the effect that U.D.Cs with degree or 3 years experience were eligible for consideration to the post of Supervisors. It has nowhere been stated that after 1973, the petitioner was placed in such a position as to come within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Supervisor nor any particulars have been given to the effect that they were not so considered for such post. The petitioners have not attached any particulars with the writ petitions to show that they were senior most as U.D.Cs. when post had fallen vacant or that only the petitioners could have been considered and no-one else. The petitioners cannot be bene fitted because of lacking of complete particulars in this regard. The petitioners have not attached any particulars with the writ petitions to show that they were senior most as U.D.Cs. when post had fallen vacant or that only the petitioners could have been considered and no-one else. The petitioners cannot be bene fitted because of lacking of complete particulars in this regard. Only because of the reason, as ,alleged by the petitioners, that they happen to be graduates at the relevant time or prior or subsequent to 1973 and had an experience of 3 years as U.D.C., it cannot be held that they were entitled to be considered for promotion only because of the reason that they fulfilled the qualifications. Apart from showing the eligibility after 1973, the petitioners are bound to show that they were the senior most persons and there was no other person eligible over and above them for the purpose of considering them for the post of Supervisor. It is the admitted fact that right from 1973 to 1978, no-one was ever promoted or considered for promotions for the post of Supervisor because of the reason that this very provision of promoting certain U.D.Cs. by issuing instructions was the subject matter of a litigation in the civil court. The matter was sub-judice. The civil trial court had given a clear finding that only Assistants could be promoted to the post of Supervisors and not the U.D.Cs. The finding was confirmed by the appellate court and also by the High Court. 24. It is also admitted fact that the U.D.Cs. were to be promoted on the post of Office Assistants as incorporated in 1957 rules in the year 1967 and the Government in its own wisdom had amended 1973 rules, before making any promotion to the post of Supervisor, in the year 1978 and it had been specifically incorporated in the rules that the post of Supervisor shall be filled up through the channel of Office Assistant i.e. only office Assistant could man the post of Supervisor on being promoted. There is no dispute that the Government is competent to make such rules as to provide the channel of promotion. If the Government had already made an amendment for promotion of U.D.C. to supervisor, the Government was competent to re- constitute the rules and amend It still further. There is no dispute that the Government is competent to make such rules as to provide the channel of promotion. If the Government had already made an amendment for promotion of U.D.C. to supervisor, the Government was competent to re- constitute the rules and amend It still further. The contention of the petitioner that their vested right has been effected and therefore, the amendment of rules made in the year 1978 and subsequent amendments on the ground that because of the reason that year-wise determination of vacancies had not been made, the amendment is ultravires has not merit. It is not shown any where that the petitioner had any vested right or that they were given the r benefit which was being withdrawn or likely to be withdrawn. Only because of the reason that eligibility qualification had been prescribed to the post of Supervisor for certain period, it cannot be said that the petitioners acquire the vested right to be promoted as supervisor during that period. Until and unless it is also shown that they were senior most and if the vacancies had been determined year-wise from 1973 to 1978, they would have been considered and promoted. No right had ever accrued to the petitioners for promotion even though they were eligible so far as the qualifications were concerned. The petitioners cannot make any complaint in this regard. The petitioners had tried to rely on certain authorities to show that because of the reason that their vested right has been infringed by way of amendment in the rules of 1978 and by providing a channel of promotion from the post of Assistants of the post of Supervisor instead of promoting them directly from U.D.Cs. to Supervisor. But none of the authorities quoted by the petitioners has any applicability to the facts fo the present case for the reasons that no vested right had ever accrued to the petitioners. Therefore the judgments as quoted in 1993 (1) SLR 89, 1990 (3) SCC 157 , 1997 (6) SCC 613 and 1994 (Suppl.) SCC 1 have no relevancy for the determination of point involved in the present cases. 25. Therefore the judgments as quoted in 1993 (1) SLR 89, 1990 (3) SCC 157 , 1997 (6) SCC 613 and 1994 (Suppl.) SCC 1 have no relevancy for the determination of point involved in the present cases. 25. The writ petitions can be non-suited on additional grounds of Latches as well i.e. it is admitted fact that even though so called rules of 1973 were amended in the year 1978, and assuming that the petitioners were within the zone of consideration, but not considered because of the non-determination of the vacancies, but still none of the petitioner challenged the action of the State immediately. The writ petitions had been filed in the 5 year 1983, 1985 and 1989. Because of the laches, the writ petitions are likely to be dismissed. 26. The writ petitions are also likely to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel. The contention of the petitioners is that the U.D.Cs. should have been promoted to the post of Supervisors who fulfil the qualifications in the D year 1973 to 1978 and not Assistants but in all the present cases, all the petitioners had been promoted first as Assistant which post they accepted and later on they were promoted as Supervisor and it was only then after the promotion of Supervisors that the wisdom is said to have dawned on the petitioners to the effect that instead of being promoted in the years 1982 or 1983 or subsequent as Supervisor they ought to have been promoted in the year 1969 or any period from 1969 to 1978. The petitioners had accepted the post of the Assistant and got another promotion from the post of Assistant and now the petitioners cannot be allowed to say that they should have been promoted from the post of U.D.C. to the post of Supervisor under the Rule of 1973, as amended or under certain instructions of the year 1956. The petitioners themselves had accepted the promotion to the post of Supervisor from the post of Assistant and after having accepted such promotions, the petitioners are challenging the amended Rules of 1978 to the effect that the post of Supervisor cannot be filled-up from the post of Assistant and Graduate U.D.Cs. should have been promoted direct to the post of Supervisor, even though as has been observed by me it has not been shown that they were ever within zone of consideration. should have been promoted direct to the post of Supervisor, even though as has been observed by me it has not been shown that they were ever within zone of consideration. 27. All the petitioners have now superannuated after having been promoted from the Cadred post of Supervisor to its higher post. 28. The petitions are liable to be dismissed on the merits as well as on the ground of laches and estopple. 29. For the reasons mentioned above, all the writ petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******