B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is working as Junior assistant in the 2nd respondent-College, has filed this writ petition questioning the action of the 2nd respondent-College in promoting the 3rd respondent-Store-keeper as Senior Assistant in its Proceedings rc. No. 1a/96. dated 04-07-1996. ( 2 ) THE undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk-cum-Typist in the 2nd respondent- college and he possessed all the requisite qualifications for promotion to the post of senior Assistant by the end of the year 1989. While things stood thus, on 21-04-1993 a vacancy in the post of Senior Assistant has arisen due to the demise of the incumbent and the petitioner was kept in full additional charge of the post on 27-08-1993. Subsequently, when a vacancy has arisen in the post of Superintendent, again he was kept in full additional charge of that post on 01-10-1995. It is also his case that from 1994 onwards, he was making representations to promote him as Senior Assistant on regular basis as he was the only qualified person to hold that post at the time when the vacancy has arisen. But the respondents did not pass any orders on his representation all these years. In the meantime, the third respondent, who is working as a Storekeeper seemed to have passed departmental tests prescribed for the post of senior Assistant. Subsequently, a D. P. C. (Departmental Promotion Committee) meeting was held on 04-07-1996 and on the ground that the 3rd respondent was senior, he was promoted as Senior Assistant on regular basis by the respondents by the impugned order, which is now assailed in this Writ Petition. ( 3 ) THE Court is called upon to decide whether the appointment of the 3rd respondent in the year 1996 in a vacancy that has arisen in 1993 is in accordance with law. Though I have given sufficient time to the respondents to produce their Rules governing the service conditions of its employees, they failed to do so. On the other hand, from the impugned order it is seen that the respondents are following the rules applicable to the Government servants and the promotion to the 3rd respondent was given under Rule 37 (A) (1) of State and Subordinate Service Rules. On the other hand, from the impugned order it is seen that the respondents are following the rules applicable to the Government servants and the promotion to the 3rd respondent was given under Rule 37 (A) (1) of State and Subordinate Service Rules. Hence, the issue has to be adjudicated with reference to the Ministerial Service Rules read with State and Subordinate Service rules (hereinafter called as general Rules ). Under Rule 4 of the Ministerial Service rules, appointment to any category, grade or post has to be made by promotion from any, immediately lower category, grade or post. Under Rule 4 (3) of the said Rules, all promotions to the posts shall be made on grounds of Seniority-cum-efficiency. Under rule 22 of the said Rules, one must pass intermediate Examination or any equivalent examination for appointment to the Service under the Ministerial Service Rules either by direct recruitment or by recruitment by transfer or by promotion. Rule 23 (2) prescribes special qualifications for appointment to the service. Under annexure-II to this Rule, Superintendents/ senior Assistants and Head Clerks have to pass Deputy Inspectors Test and Accounts test for Subordinate Officers-Part I. While the petitioner acquired the qualifications in the year 1989, the 3rd respondent acquired the qualifications in the year 1996. In fact, on 21-04-1993 when a vacancy in the post of senior Assistant has arisen due to the demise of the incumbent, the petitioner is the only candidate qualified for appointment to the post and in fact, he was not only kept in-charge of the post of Senior assistant, but also the next higher post i. e. , superintendent. The respondents waited till the 3rd respondent passed the departmental Examinations and issued the impugned order relying on the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education in rc. No. 1321/pci-1/92, dated 16-09-1992 wherein the private managements were informed that Junior Assistants, Typists, senior Typists and Store-keepers may be treated as a single category and promotions to the posts of Senior Assistants may be given as per common seniority. It is useful to extract the relevant paras:"in Private Colleges, the chances of promotions are very bleak. Therefore, the managements are informed that direct recruitment for the posts of record Assistants, and for other category posts viz. , Museum Keeper, herbarium Keeper, Store-keeper, typist, Junior Assistant etc. It is useful to extract the relevant paras:"in Private Colleges, the chances of promotions are very bleak. Therefore, the managements are informed that direct recruitment for the posts of record Assistants, and for other category posts viz. , Museum Keeper, herbarium Keeper, Store-keeper, typist, Junior Assistant etc. , shall be considered only after the cases of internal candidates for promotion are considered. They should strictly follow the procedure as laid down in the G. O. first cited. Similarly, in the case of Store-keeper, hitherto, it was considered, that it was a distinct category viz. , security post. As in the case of Government Sector, there is no separate recruitment procedure for the posts of Junior assistant and Store-keeper in Private sector. As such the posts of Junior assistant, Typist, Steno-typist and store-keepers may be treated as single category and promotions to the post of senior Assistant may be given as per common seniority. "from the above, it is seen that as far as the government service is concerned, the post of Store-keeper was not considered as a feeder category and it was treated as a distinct category. But the Director opined that as there was no separate recruitment procedure for the posts of Junior Assistants and Store-keepers in private sector, the post of Store-keeper may also be treated as a feeder category. When the statutory rules, which are being followed by the private managements, do not specify the post of store-keeper as a feeder category, it is not known how the Store-keeper can be treated as a feeder category by issuing a clarification by the Director. Be that as it may, without going into that aspect, the dispute can be resolved in this case. ( 4 ) UNDER Rule 4 (1) of the General Rules, all first appointments either by direct recruitment, promotion or transfers have to be made from out of a list prepared by the competent authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf as per their order of reference. ( 4 ) UNDER Rule 4 (1) of the General Rules, all first appointments either by direct recruitment, promotion or transfers have to be made from out of a list prepared by the competent authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf as per their order of reference. Under Rule 4 (ii), for appointment by transfer or promotion to higher posts, the appointing authority has to estimate the vacancies in the month of september every year and shall prepare a list of approved candidates determining the eligibility of a candidate for such appointment and 1st September of the year shall be reckoned as the qualifying date to determine the eligibility of a candidate for such appointment, and the list so prepared shall be in force till 31st December of the succeeding year or till a panel is prepared whichever is earlier. From this it is evident that the appointing authority is expected to prepare the list of approved candidates for appointment by promotion or transfer in the month of September of every year and as and when vacancies arise, appointments have to be made from out of the empanelled candidates. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner acquired the qualification way back in the year 1989 and the vacancy has arisen in the panel year 1992-93 i. e. , on 21-04-1993 and on that date, the petitioner is the only qualified candidate eligible for appointment to that post. But with a view to confer undue favour on the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent-Management kept the post vacant till the year 1996 till the 3rd respondent acquired the qualification and promoted him as Senior Assistant by treating the post of Store-keeper as a feeder category for promotion to the post of Senior assistant. ( 5 ) THE Apex Court as well as this Court ruled that even if the vacancy could not be filled up during the panel year due to administrative exigencies, as and when the appointing authority has taken a decision to fill up the vacancy, the claims of the candidates who are eligible for promotion as on the date of the vacancy alone have to be taken into consideration, but not the candidates who qualified at a subsequent point of time. In Dr. In Dr. Umakant Saran vs. State of Bihar and others dealing with contention of the appellant therein that respondents 5 and 6, who are juniors to him in service, were appointed as Lecturers in Surgery at rajendra Medical College; Ranchi in disregard to his own claim to the post, their lordships of the Supreme Court ruled in para 15 as follows:"assuming that the appellant s contention is correct that the Lecturer s posts were filled by promotion, then it will have to be shown that the appellant, though he had the requisite qualification for his promotion, had been disregarded in favour of a junior. The answer made by the State government is that they had taken the decision to fill the posts on March 31, 1965 and on that day the appellant had not even completed the minimum period of teaching experience while the other two had done so. In other words, the case is that the appellant was ineligible for appointment when the decision was taken. It is true that the appointment was actually notified on 19-8-1965 when the appellant had also completed his 3 years of experience. But obviously that is irrelevant decision have to be taken first before appointments are notified. The usual administrative process takes some time. The appellant sought to controvert the statement of the government that the decision had been taken to make the appointment on March 31, 1965. But we do not think there is any substance in that contention. It would, thus, follow that while respondents 5 and 6 were eligible for appointment as Lecturers on 31-3-1965 the appellant was not and, therefore, he cannot be regarded as aggrieved for the purpose of the relief claimed by him. "in B. Krishnaiah vs. State of A. P. His lordship Justice Obul Reddi (as he then was) while setting aside the appointments made to the post of Circle Inspector of excise from 1961 to 1971, held that the oject in framing the rules has been defeated by the officers who had no regard for the rules and who seem to have been under the impression that they are making promotions as if they are domestic servants. "i, therefore, direct the respondents to estimate the vacancies each year well in advance and consider the cases of all qualified candidates without resorting to the illegal practice of making ad hoc or temporary promotions of unqualified persons, when qualified persons are available, and then regularise their services on the ground that they have subsequently passed the tests. The petitioner s claim for promotion, therefore, has to be considered with reference to the year in which he was fully qualified for promotion. " ( 6 ) IN an unreported Judgment of this court in Writ Appeal Nos. 231 and 363 of 1972 dated 05-04-1973, their Lordships the hon ble Chief Justice, Gopalrao Ekbote and hon ble Justice Madhava Rao set aside the panel of candidates approved for appointment to the post of Assistant commercial Tax Officer, Guntur Division, as per G. O. Ms. No. 384 G. A. (Services-D) department, dated 07-05-1970 and ruled that the General Rules make it abundantly clear that the panel is made only for one year and at the end of that year, according to the date fixed by the Government, it lapses and another panel has to be prepared for the next year. The whole purpose of the rule is to estimate the vacancies for a particular year and prepare a panel in that year alone, so that the vacancies could be immediately filled and the administrative work will not be affected as the appointments can immediately be made. Every year serving employees qualify themselves and their cases therefore are required to be considered. Their Lordships in that case observed as under:"before we part with the case, we must say that the purpose in making the Special and General Rules was really wholesome and was in the interest of the public administration. The whole purpose, however, in practice has been defeated because we are told that in no department, panel is prepared for every year. Panels are usually prepared after a lapse of few years. Because of this practice, which is inconsistent with the rule, many practices which are not wholesome seem to have come into vogue. Admittedly, temporary promotions are given and they are continued for a number of years. Panels are usually prepared after a lapse of few years. Because of this practice, which is inconsistent with the rule, many practices which are not wholesome seem to have come into vogue. Admittedly, temporary promotions are given and they are continued for a number of years. When actually a penal is prepared and rightful persons are promoted, such persons who could not find their place in the panel and yet promoted carry on the litigation, with the result that even if a panel is prepared after a long delay, because of the delay the rightful persons do not enjoy the fruits of their promotion. The whole thing can be avoided if panels are prepared in strict accord with the rules every year. If the Government finds that in practice it is not possible to implement the rules, then respect for law would require that some other suitable scheme should be evolved. Continuous disrespect for the law would undermine the confidence in the Government of the State. " ( 7 ) HENCE, the principle that can be deduced from the above decisions would be that the appointing authority has to consider the claims of the employees who are eligible for promotion on the day when the vacancy has arisen. In fact, they are expected to prepare the panel in the month of September every year and it will be in force till 31st December of the succeeding year or a fresh panel is prepared whichever is earlier and only eligible and qualified candidates alone have to be included in the panels that are to be prepared every year and promotions to be effected in the vacancies that have arisen in that year. In that view of the matter, admittedly the petitioner is qualified to hold the post of senior Assistant during the panel year 1992-93 when vacancy has arisen and the respondents cannot withhold the preparation of the panel till 1996 in which year Respondent No. 3 was qualified and cannot promote him on the ground that he is senior-most in the College. I have no manner of doubt that the order promoting the third respondent is ab initio void and it has to be set aside. I have no manner of doubt that the order promoting the third respondent is ab initio void and it has to be set aside. Accordingly, the order promoting the third respondent as Senior assistant from 27th August, 1993 is quashed and a consequent direction is given to consider the claim of the candidates eligible for appointment to the post of Senior Assistant during the panel year 1992-93 as contemplated under rule 4 (ii) of the General Rules which have been adopted by the 2nd respondent- management. Though both the Counsel cited a number of decisions, as they are not on the point in issue, I am not referring the same in the Judgment. ( 8 ) THE Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders dated 27-08-1993 is quashed. Rule Nisi is made absolute. But under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.