Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-These two special appeals are against common order passed in Vinod Pareek & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2861/98) and Ramchandra Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4537/98) on 18th August, 1999. (2). The facts giving rise to these appeals arc that the petitioners in these two writ petitions were members of the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service. The recruitment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service is governed by the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. Under Rule 7, two sources of recruitment have been provided namely direct recruitment through combined competitive examination and by promotion of Tehsildars. The ratio between two sources from which recruitment is to be made to the service have been varied from time to time. Vide notification dated 2 8.97, the rules were amended and the ratio through direct recruitment and promotion was fixed as 66.7% and 33.3% respectively in place of 75% and 25%. The said amendment in the rules had been made effective with effect from 4.97. According to the petitioners, the cadre strength of RAS is about 752 and the same is likely to increase in future. The grievance of the petitioners is that with effect from 4.97 1/3 of the cadre strength accounts for 257 posts which should be filled up by promotion from the members of RTS whereas the respondents have filled up only 195 posts by promotion and therefore mandamus was sought against the respondents, the present appellants, to fill in the balance quota through promotion out of the vacancies lying in the junior scale of RAS. According to respondents, the cadre strength is fixed by notification dated 12.95 is 630. This includes not only permanent posts of deputation reserved and ex- cadre posts but also temporarily encadred posts in the RAS and 25% of the total duly posts i.e. 113and training reserved as 10% of the direct recruits i.e. 42.5% of the leave reserved of the direct recruits i.e. 21 and this has been done by taking liberal view of computing the cadre strength by including such posts in the cadre. Thus, they have determined total 210 posts to be filled by promotion as on 4.97. Thus, they have determined total 210 posts to be filled by promotion as on 4.97. 159 persons of promotion quota were working and to fill up the remaining promotional posts a departmental promotion committee was held on 211.97 and some of the petitioners did not fall within the zone of consideration as per rules. Apparently, the present appellants have not included all the temporary posts created upto 4.97 in the cadre strength in computing the cadre strength and by excluding such posts they have also determined the quota at 25% as it was existing prior to issuance of Notification dated 2 8.97 amending the rules retrospectively with effect from 4.97. (3). The principal question contended before the learned Single Judge and also before us by the appellants is that temporary vacancies created by the Governor to be filled by the officers of the Rajasthan Administrative Service cannot be counted in the cadre strength for the promotions and operating promotion quotas. The petitioners have been urging to the contrary. The learned Single Judge found that the cadre strength includes all types of posts including temporary posts and it is not open for the State to urge that persons belonging to the cadre of the petitioners are entitled to be promoted by the notification on 1/3rd of the cadre strength as on 4.97 as per the amendment Rule. On these findings, the respondents were directed to determine the cadre strength on the 1st of April, 1997 and on 1st April of each subsequent year and to consider the persons from RTS for 33% of the cadre strength so determined by including temporary vacancies of a long term duration, leave reserve, trainee reserve or any such kind of vacancies. For carrying out this exercise four months time was allowed and to hold Review DPC to fill up the vacancies if any strictly in accordance with law. (4). Aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment , the State of Rajasthan has preferred these appeals. It has been urged primarily relying on Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954 that cadre strength includes only the permanent posts or the substantive posts and such strength is to be determined by the Govt. from time to time. (4). Aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment , the State of Rajasthan has preferred these appeals. It has been urged primarily relying on Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954 that cadre strength includes only the permanent posts or the substantive posts and such strength is to be determined by the Govt. from time to time. Such determination having been made by Notification dated 12.95 fixing the cadre strength at 630 which has also been included in the schedule, the cadre strength must be taken to be 630 only until the same is altered or varied by another notification. (5). On the other hand. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner-respondents, urged that the cadre strength is governed by the Rules of 154 and there is nothing in the Rules which exclude the temporary posts created in exercise of powers under the Rules to be excluded from the computation of cadre strength for the purpose of considering the promotion to such posts. He too places reliance on Rule 6, 7 and 9 of the Rules of 1954. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in O.P. Garg v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1991 SC 1202 ) and Ram Kishore Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (JT 1999(2)SC 385) to urge that for the purpose of computing vacancies for operating quota rule to be allotted to each source of recruitment as per rules all types of vacancies as are available on 1st April of each financial year has to be taken into consideration, it makes little difference whether the vacancy to be filled in the ensuing year is permanent, temporary or any other kind envisaged under the Rules. (6). What is the strength of Service in a given case depends on the rules governing the service and no straight jacket answer can be given i.e. whether it includes only permanent posts; whether it includes only notified posts or whether it includes permanent as well as temporary posts as will be seen from some of the cases which we intend to refer. (7). In A.K. Subraman v. Union of India ( AIR 1975 SC 483 ), the question arose under the Central Engineering Service Class I Recruitment Rules, 1954. (7). In A.K. Subraman v. Union of India ( AIR 1975 SC 483 ), the question arose under the Central Engineering Service Class I Recruitment Rules, 1954. Rules of 154 which are similar to those of 1949 Recruitment Rules, provided that officers in the grade of Assistant Executive Engineer (Class I) and certain Assistant Engineers (Class II) are eligible for promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer (Class I), The Rules further provided that vacancies in the grade of Executive Engineer can only be filled by promotion from the aforesaid two grades in the ratio of 75% and 25%. The aforesaid quota was retrospectively altered with effect from September 7, 1955 to 66-2/3% and 33-1/3% respectively. The question was for operating aforesaid quota of promotion, what should be considered the strength of the grade of Executive Engineer. Whether, it will include temporary posts from time to time or not? A situation very much similar to one arising in the present case was before the Court. The Court answered:- “Now the question which arises for consideration is what is the meaning of the words “vacancies in the grade of Executive Engineer” as used in the aforesaid paragraph of Rule 4(2). When does a vacancy in the grade of Executive Engineer arise? To answer this question it is necessary to ascertain what are the posts which the grade of Executive Engineer consists of , for the vacancies can only be in the posts in the grade’ of Executive Engineer. The word “grade” has various shades of meaning in the service jurisprudence. It is sometimes used to denote a pay scale and sometimes a cadre. Here it is obviously used in the sense of cadre. A cadre may consists only of permanent posts or sometimes, as is quite common these days, also of temporary posts………. Whenever therefore, a vacancy arises in a permanent post or in a temporary post it would be a vacancy in the grade of Executive Engineer and the quota rule for promotion would apply.” Thus, temporary posts were treated to be posts of cadre strength to which quota rule applied. (8). In. O.P. Singla v. Union of India ( AIR 1984 SC 1595 ), the Court was considering the question arising under Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970. (8). In. O.P. Singla v. Union of India ( AIR 1984 SC 1595 ), the Court was considering the question arising under Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970. The question arose in the context of a petition seeking enforcement of quota rule vis a vis direct recruitment for the promotees in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, On the question as to what should be the considered cadre post for the purpose of controversy that was before the Court, the Court referred to the definition given to the cadre post under Rule 2(b) of the said Rules which provided that ‘Cadre Post’ means any post specified in the Schedule and includes a temporary post carrying the same designation as that of any of the posts specified in the Schedule. Commenting on the second part of the definition, which included a temporary post carrying the same designation as that of any of any cadre post, the Court said that that part of the definition says that Cadre Post includes a temporary post carrying the same designation as that of any of the posts specified in the Schedule. This provision is consequential to and in consonance with Rule 16. Since it is permissible under the rule to create temporary posts in the Service, such posts are also regarded as Cadre Posts. It would have been anomalous to treat a post in the Service as an ex-cadre post merely for the reason that the post is temporary. Normally, an ex-cadre post means a post outside the cadre of posts comprised in a Service. Therefore, all posts in the Service, whether permanent or temporary, are generally regarded as Cadre Posts. On this count there was no difference of opinion between the majority view and the minority view. The difference existed whether quota rule applied to ex-cadre temporary posts, when the rules envisaged direct recruitments only to substantive posts. (9). In G.C. Gupta v. N.K. Pandey (AIR 1988 SC 268), the question arose under the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936. The issue related to the determination of seniority concerning the persons who were appointed as Assistant Engineers against temporary posts. Such person, the petitioner, had demanded to assign seniority on the basis of his initial appointment to the Service as temporary Assistant Engineer claiming that he became member of Service with effect from that date. The issue related to the determination of seniority concerning the persons who were appointed as Assistant Engineers against temporary posts. Such person, the petitioner, had demanded to assign seniority on the basis of his initial appointment to the Service as temporary Assistant Engineer claiming that he became member of Service with effect from that date. The claim of the petitioner was contested on the ground that he does not become member of Service because the temporary post cannot be considered to be a cadre post and a person appointed against it cannot be considered to be a member of the Service, a member of Service can only be one who has been appointed substantively against substantive post. The contention is like before us that only substantive permanent posts are included in the cadre strength under Rule 6. The Court rejected the plea by holding:- “………The argument that their appointment being made against temporary posts and not against permanent posts and not on probation as well as they being not confirmed and their confirmation being not notified in the United Province’s Gazette before 1956, they are not entitled to be treated as members of the Service being appointed in the substantive capacity, cannot be sustained under any circumstances. Rule 4 of the Service Rules clearly states that the cadre of Assistant Engineers will comprise of both permanent and temporary posts and as such the argument that unless and until the respondent are appointed on probation against permanent posts and unless they are confirmed they cannot be treated as members of the Service is wholly untenable. One can be a member of Service if he is appointed in a substantive capacity as distinguished from a fortuitous appointment or an appointment for a fixed tenure or on purely temporary basis against a temporary post of Assistant Engineer in the cadre.” Thus, the Court held that the temporary post too was a post of the cadre and a person regularly appointed to such post also becomes member of the Service. It was however made clear that if to a temporary post, person is not appointed in regular manner, or the appointment is fortuitous, adhoc or to fill stop gap arrangement, such appointment cannot be treated as appointment to cadre. (10). In O.P. Garg vs. State of U.P. (supra) the question again arose under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. It was however made clear that if to a temporary post, person is not appointed in regular manner, or the appointment is fortuitous, adhoc or to fill stop gap arrangement, such appointment cannot be treated as appointment to cadre. (10). In O.P. Garg vs. State of U.P. (supra) the question again arose under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. The Court on construction of Rule 4(4) which provided creation of temporary posts and Rules 231 provided, for making appointment on the substantive post, the Court held that all temporary posts created under Rule 4(4) of the 1975 Rules are additions to the permanent strength of the cadre and as such form part of the cadre. Appointments under Rule 22 of the 1975 Rules can be made to a permanent post as well as to a temporary post. So long as the temporary post has an independent existence and is a part of the cadre strength the appointment against the said post has to be treated substantive appointment. (11). The same principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Ram Kishore Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) which also arose under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. The Court reiterated the view expressed by it in O.P. Garg’s case (supra) that the temporary posts created under Rule 4 are addition to the permanent strength of the Service and vacancies whether of temporary or permanent posts will be taken not in determining the quota available for different sources of recruitment. (12). A similar view has been expressed by this Court in Kumari Veena Verma v. State (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4580/96, decided on 20.03.98 RHC). The case arose in connection with the operation of quota rule for recruitment to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service from different sources namely direct recruitment and the promotional recruitments. Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 which was considered by the learned Single Judge, read as under:- “Strength of the Service.-(1) Strength of the Service shall, until orders varying the same have been passed under sub- rule (2), be as specified in schedule I. (2) The strength of the Service may be varied by the Governor, from time to time, in consultation with the Court. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), the Governor may, in consultation with the Court, hold any appointment to the Service in abeyance for such time as he deems fit, without thereby entitling any person to compensation.” (13). On the aforesaid strength, the petitioners who were the applicants for the direct recruitments, contended that vacancies have not been properly determined as per the strength of Service to be made available for direct recruitments. Considering the controversy whether the strength of Service includes only such number of posts as has been specified in the schedule, until the schedule is modified, the Court by conjoint reading of clause (1) and (2) ruled against the necessity of amending the schedule every time for the purpose of determining the strength of Service and held the issuance of the orders by the Governor for creating temporary or permanent posts in addition to the existing posts resulting in automatic variance of the strength of Service. The learned Judge said: “A consideration of Rule 6 shows that the number of posts shown in the Schedule I was intended to be varied. The strength of Service was liable to be varied by the executive order of the Governor from time to time with consultation of Court. Such variance was to be frequent also. A rapid growth in the number of Courts required the growth of the cadre also. The frequency of increase in number of Courts, increased the number of officers in the cadre. Without increase in the cadre, such officers cannot be appointed substantively. If the cadre strength cannot be changed without change in Schedule-I, then it leads to an absurdity, by an order passed under Rule (2) strength of cadre can be changed. If corresponding ministerial act of changing the Schedule is not done, then can it be said that the cadre of the strength has not changed? I am afraid that this is not the purport of Rule 6(1). This rule clearly says that until orders varying the same have been passed under sub-rule (2), the strength of Service shall be as specified in the Schedule. Once the order under Rule 6(2) has been passed, the number given in Schedule I looses its significance and the strength of the cadre will be what the order passed under Rule 6(2) would say. Once the order under Rule 6(2) has been passed, the number given in Schedule I looses its significance and the strength of the cadre will be what the order passed under Rule 6(2) would say. Thus, the cadre strength has to be seen in the light of the orders passed under Rule 6(2). Numbers given in Schedule cannot be a guiding factor for an order under Rule 6(2).” (14). Though, the decision on merit has since been reversed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 4 10/98 decided on 30th April, 1999, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid issue has been affirmed by the Division Bench also. The Division Bench speaking through Kokje Ag. CJ. said:- “………The appellant’s interpretation which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge appears to be correct. Amendment of the Schedule is not necessary and by creation of posts the strength of Service has to be taken to be varied from time to time. The respondents, however, submitted that the proper and correct construction to be put on Rule 6 would be that the Strength of Schedule I and mare orders creating posts in the RHJS exceeding the number of posts mentioned in the Schedule cannot be taken to be orders passed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 varying the strength of the Service….. Having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the opinion that on harmonious construction, creation of posts beyond the cadre strength mentioned in Schedule I have to be taken to be increase in the strength of the Service under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. If a narrow interpretation is accepted, the rule would completely defeat the provisions of Rule 8 and Rule 9 and would bring about a situation whereby a mere non-amendment of the Schedule the provisions for direct recruitment to the RHJS can be effectively done away with.” (15). If a narrow interpretation is accepted, the rule would completely defeat the provisions of Rule 8 and Rule 9 and would bring about a situation whereby a mere non-amendment of the Schedule the provisions for direct recruitment to the RHJS can be effectively done away with.” (15). From the aforesaid decisions it is well settled that ordinarily unless the Rules otherwise provide, the cadre strength of the Service for the purpose of operating quota rule and determining the vacancies available to be filled by different sources, the permanent as well as temporary posts or any other posts created in addition to the permanent posts under the service rules, constitute the cadre strength of the Service against which appointment by regular mode can be made and ordinarily the quota rule operates against the total strength of the cadre including temporary as well as permanent posts. Illustration of such rule can be found in O.P. Singla’s case (supra) wherein, notwithstanding cadre strength consisting of permanent and temporary posts, appointment by direct recruitment was open only substantively against permanent posts and temporary posts as a consequence necessarily remain exclusive preserve for recruitment by promotions. (16). In this connection, we may now notice the relevant rules on which great emphasis has been laid by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Rule 6. “Strength:-The strength of posts in each grade of the Service shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. Provided that - (i) the Government may create any post, permanent or temporary from time to time, as may be found necessary and may abolish any post in the like manner without thereby entitling any person to any compensation; (ii) the Government may leave unfilled or hold in abeyance or allow to lapse any such posts, permanent or temporary, from time to time, without thereby entitling any person to any compensation.” (17). At the outset we may notice that Rule 6 in the present form has been substituted vide Notification No. F. 1(15)DOP/A-II/79 dated 30th June, 1981, prior to the amendment the rule in its original form reads as under:- 6. At the outset we may notice that Rule 6 in the present form has been substituted vide Notification No. F. 1(15)DOP/A-II/79 dated 30th June, 1981, prior to the amendment the rule in its original form reads as under:- 6. Strength of Service.-The strength of the Service and the nature of posts therein shall be as specified in Schedule-I: Provided (i) that Government may revise the Schedule every five years “or earlier, if necessary”; and (ii) that Government may leave unfilled or hold in abeyance any vacant post-without thereby entitling any person to compensation or may create additional temporary posts in the Service, from time to time, as may be found necessary. (18). A marked difference in the rule that existed prior to amendment and as it exists now after the amendment, can be noticed. Prior to the amendment, the rule required that the strength of Service and the nature of posts therein to be a specified in the Schedule I and for amendment of the strength of Service was provided under sub-rule (2) which required the Govt. to revise the Schedule every five years or earlier if necessary. Thus, under the rule as it existed prior to 1981, the cadre strength of the Service was expressed through the strength shown in the Schedule-I appended to the rules and for any variation in the strength of Service the Schedule itself was required to be amended and since Schedule itself was a part of the Rules, it could only be done by notification. This, in our opinion, answers the first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the cadre strength is as notified in the Schedule I can only be amended by issuing a notification for amending the Schedule or by issuing such notification notifying the strength of Service for which reliance was placed on the such notification referred to above. The argument obviously flows from the repealed Rule 6 giving definition of the Strength of Service. The Schedule now no more a part of the Rules as determining the strength of the Service. The argument obviously flows from the repealed Rule 6 giving definition of the Strength of Service. The Schedule now no more a part of the Rules as determining the strength of the Service. Therefore, that part of the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that in absence of notification specifying the strength of Service and consequently amending the Schedule, no change in the earlier notified strength of the posts in the cadre can take place merely by creation of posts temporarily or permanent, cannot be accepted on the plain reading of Rule 6. The substantive part of Rule 6 reads “The strength of posts in each grade of the Service shall he such as may be determined by the Government from time to time” and not as “notified”, as is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel. The substantive rule does not classify the posts of the cadre in two categories of the permanent or temporary. On the other hand, proviso envisages creation and abolition of cadre posts of both categories by same process. It cannot be assumed that even if some of the parts, already notified as cadre strength are abolished, can continue to form part of cadre strength unless earlier notification is also independently amended. Result can be different if by the same process posts are created under the proviso to Rule 6. (19). Moreover, the rule on its plain construction includes all posts created by the Govt. whether permanent or temporary from time to time in cadre strength. In the first instance, the rule provides that the strength as may be determined by the Govt. from time to time. This general provision about specifying cadre strength is subjected to two provisos. It is cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular provision ordinarily only embraces the field which is covered by the main provision to which it has been enacted as proviso and to no other. The main rule enacts about the cadre strength of the posts in Service to he as determined by the Govt. from time to time. Proviso to this provision ought ordinarily be read in the context of determination of cadre strength from time to time. The proviso also envisages that the Govt. The main rule enacts about the cadre strength of the posts in Service to he as determined by the Govt. from time to time. Proviso to this provision ought ordinarily be read in the context of determination of cadre strength from time to time. The proviso also envisages that the Govt. may create any post temporary or permanent from time to time as may be found necessary and may abolish any post in the like manner without entitling any person any compensation. The fountain head for determining the strength of posts as well as for creation and abolition of posts remain the State Government. The strength of the post is also to be determined by the Govt. from time to time so also the same rule empowers the Govt. to create posts temporary and permanent from time to time. Thus, the provisions read in totality must mean that cadre strength (which means strength of posts in the service) shall he as determined from time to time; and such determination depends on creation of or abolition of posts by the State Govt. from time to time. As the rule itself envisages creation of posts of temporary as well as permanent nature, posts in the cadre include both permanent as well as temporary if the same are created under Rule 6 of the Rules. Once the posts are created under the service rules, the recruitment to such posts is also governed by the same rules which is subject of Rule 7 which reads as under: “7. Source of Recruitment - (1) Recruitment to the Service shall be made: (a) by direct recruitment through combined competitive examination; (b) by promotion of Tehsildars. (2) Recruitment to the Service by aforesaid methods shall be made in such a manner that the persons appointed to the Service by each method do not any time exceed the following percentage of the total cadre strength as sanctioned from time to time: (1) by direct recruitment 75% (2) by promotion 25% Provided - (i) the Government in special circumstances, consider recruiting persons by special selection not exceeding 5% of the total promotion quota posts in ordinary scale of the Service in any particular year. (ii) for direct recruitment by combined competitive examination, the vacancies shall be reserved for candidates who are non-gazetted employees in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962. (3) The expression “No person shall be appointed to the Service by Selection unless he be less than 45 years of age on the first day of January next following the year in which the selection is made if he is already officiating on a post encadred in the Service, he was less than 45 years of age on the date from which he has been continuously so officiating; Provided that in the case of a Scheduled Caste or of a Scheduled Tribe the crucial age shall be 48 years; Provided further that till the 1st January, 1958 this sub- rule shall not be in force occurring below proviso (iv) to Rule 11 shall be deleted.” (20). Vide Notification dated 2 8.97 sub-rule (2) has been amended by inserting the respective proportion of direct recruitment as 66.7% and by promotion 33.3%. (21). We also notice that in the Notification dated 12.95 the Govt. too has included posts of all sources; permanent, temporary, deputation, leave reserve while notifying the cadre strength of the Rajasthan Administrative Service. That obviously must determinate vacancy position for the purpose of recruitment process commencing with Financial Year on 4.95. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude the temporary posts when the question of determining the vacancies on first of April at the commencement of each subsequent financial year arise for consideration. The availability of posts whether temporary or permanent as on that date to be filled up under the Rules has to be taken into consideration. The vacancy determination often takes place later on. There does not appear to be serious dispute on considering the temporary posts while determining the vacancies. The bone of contention was whether such temporary posts can be made available for operating quota rule. We see no reason in the Rules to exclude such consideration of temporary vacancies to operate promotion quota. (22). The prescribed manner of determining the vacancies occurring in each year in different Services through RPSC, give a clue and lends support to our conclusion. (23). We see no reason in the Rules to exclude such consideration of temporary vacancies to operate promotion quota. (22). The prescribed manner of determining the vacancies occurring in each year in different Services through RPSC, give a clue and lends support to our conclusion. (23). While carrying out the exercise of promotion in various Services under the State Government by different rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Govt. has laid down a uniform procedure in Part I of the said procedure. The primary requirements for DPC have been detailed and under clause I of it subject to the provisions of the rules, the appointing authority is required to determine on the 1st April of every year the actual number of vacancies appearing or likely to occur during the financial year and sub-clause (c) of clause I further provides that where a post is to be filled by more than one method as prescribed in the rules or Schedule, the appointment on vacancy determined under clause (1) by each method shall be done maintaining the prescribed proportion for the overall number of posts already filled in. By Circular No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-II/81/Part V dated 18.2.84(10/84) vide clarification No.2, the procedure for primary requirement of determining vacancies was detailed as under: “(2) Vacancies occurring in a year to be determined: (a) clear vacanciesof the department, as it exist on the 1st April of the year, irrespective of the ad-hoc or urgent temporary appointments made against such vacancies; (b) newly created posts, if any, included in the budget or may have been agreed to by the Finance Department upto the date the vacancies are determined; (c) vacancies occurring on account of retirement during the year in question; (d) vacancies which shall occur consequent to promotion to higher posts