Honble CHAUHAN, J.–In the instant petition, petitioner has challenged the promotion of respondent No. 3 and prays that his promotion order may be quashed and respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to promote petitioner as Assistant Engineer with effect from 16.5.96, the date on which respondent No. 3 was promoted, with all consequential benefits. (2). Inspite of service for final hearing, respondent No. 3 has not entered appearance and as petitioner is attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.1999, the petition is heard finally. (3). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that petitioner was working as Workshop Supervisor and respondent No. 3 as Drilling Supervisor. Both the posts were of the same status, carrying same pay scale and carrying the same duties and both the services had a common seniority list. Petitioner was senior to respondent No. 3 in the seniority list dated 2.9.92 (Annexure 3), as petitioner was shown at Serial No.1 whereas respondent No.3 at Serial No.16. Another seniority list dated 6.1.95 (Annexure 12) shows that petitioner was again placed over and above respondent No.3 as petitioner was shown at Serial No. 8 and respondent No. 3 at Serial No. 10. Those seniority lists had never been in doubt. Respondent No.3 had earlier filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2444/1990 seeking various reliefs. The present petitioner filed an application in that writ petition for impleadment apprehending that if that petition stood allowed, present petitioner might be adversely affected. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, petitioner therein, agreed to the extent that the present petitioner was over and above respondent No. 3, in the seniority lists so he would not be adversely affected by any means and after recording the statement of learned counsel for respondent No. 3, application filed by the present petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.1.1993 (Annexure 5), holding that he would, by no means, be adversely affected. The said order became final as it had never been challenged and the undisputed position remained the petitioner was senior to respondent No.3. (4). Respondents No. 1 and 2 amended the Rajasthan Ground Water Service Rules, 1969 vide order dated 6.7.90 (Annexure 8), by which the criteria for promo- tion to the post of Assistant Engineer has been bifurcated in two wings, i.e. 33% from Supervisors and 17% from Workshop Supervisors and Drilling Foremen and since Mr. (4). Respondents No. 1 and 2 amended the Rajasthan Ground Water Service Rules, 1969 vide order dated 6.7.90 (Annexure 8), by which the criteria for promo- tion to the post of Assistant Engineer has been bifurcated in two wings, i.e. 33% from Supervisors and 17% from Workshop Supervisors and Drilling Foremen and since Mr. N.K. Dutta, respondent No.3, was Supervisor, he was considered for promotion amongst the Supervisors and by assigning seniority in a separate wing, he was promoted and petitioner could not be promoted. (5). Mr. B.L. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Notification dated 6.7.90 could not be published in the gazette before 17.11.92 and, thus, there was no occasion for respondents No.1 and 2 to enforce it prior to the date of its publication as the law becomes effective after it is published in the official gazette. His submissions is fully substantiated and fortified by a large num- ber of judicial pronouncements, e.g., Avdhesh Singh vs. Vikrama Aheer (1), State of Rajasthan and others vs. Mayor Hans George (2). In I.T.C. Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (3), the Honble Supreme Court has held that a notification becomes operative only when it is published in the official gazette. Same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Jain and others vs. Union of India and others (4), and B.K. Sriniwasan vs. State of Karnataka and others (5). (6). In Collector of Central Excise vs. New Tobacco Company (6), the Honble Supreme Court held that in order to make a piece of legislation or subordinate legislation operative, not only its publication in the official gazette is enough but after publication the gazette should be made available to public and it cannot be said to be effective unless the people had knowledge of it. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ram Raghuveer Prasad Agrawal (7). (7). In Harla vs. State of Rajasthan and others (8), the issue which came for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court was whether mere passing of resolution by the Council of Ministers,purported to enact the Jaipur Opium Act with- out promulgation or publication in the gazette, was sufficient to make it law. The Court placed reliance upon the judgment in Johnson vs. Sargent (9), wherein it has been held that the order does not become operative/effective until it is made known to public. The Court placed reliance upon the judgment in Johnson vs. Sargent (9), wherein it has been held that the order does not become operative/effective until it is made known to public. Therefore, to make to order, rule or law effective, its publication in official gazette and by other means is a condition precedent. (10). In view of the amendment dated 6.7.90, the two separate seniority lists in the cadre of Drilling Supervisors and Work Supervisor were prepared in 1994 and 1995 and the promotions were made in 1996 on the vacancies of 1990. It is settled proposition of law that if the rules are amended, the vacancies, which occurred prior to amendment of the Rules, have to be filled-up according to the old rules. (Vide A.A. Calton vs. Director of Education and others (10), Y.V. Rangaiah and others vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others (11), P. Mahendran and others vs. State of Karnataka and others (12), State of Rajasthan vs. Rameshwar Dayal (13), and Gopal Krishan Rathi vs. M.A.A. Baig and others (14). (11). Thus, in view of the above, the case required to be reconsidered as the vacancy, on which respondent No. 3 had been promoted, was of the year 1990-91 and, therefore, the vacancy on promotional post had to be filled-up in accordance with the rules existing prior to amendment and in view of the fact that petitioner being senior to the respondent no. 3, he ought to have been considered for promotion. (12). The petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 16.5.96 is quashed. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion for the vacancies of 1991, and if petitioner is found eligible/suitable, he shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. The exercise may be completed by the respondents within a period of three months.