S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-8-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the Writ petition No. 13158 of 1996. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein praying for issuance of writ of mandamus and to declare the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in promoting the 3rd respondent therein as Senior Assistant, L. N. Gupta college of Science and Commerce, charkaman, Hyderabad by overlooking the eligibility and service as incharge assistant and Office incharge, even though the 3rd respondent acquired the eligibility after lapse of so many years and to direct the official respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner as Senior Assistant from 27-8-1993. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist in the respondent college. In the vacancy arisen on 21-4-1993 in the post of Senior Assistant due to demise of incumbent, he was kept in full additional charge of the post on 27-8-1993. Yet again, in a vacancy arisen in the post of superintendent, the writ petitioner was kept in full additional charge with effect from 1-10-1995. Allegedly, he has been making representations to promote him as senior Assistant on regular basis on the ground that he was the only qualified person to hold the post when the vacancy had arisen. The appellant herein passed the departmental tests prescribed for the post of senior Assistant in the year 1995 whereafter a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 4-7-1996 for considering the cases of all eligible candidates for promotion to the post of senior Assistant. ( 3 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, relevant rules applicable in the instant case, have not been produced. The learned single judge proceeded on the basis that the a. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and the A. P. Ministerial Service Rules are applicable in the instant case. Relying on the said rules, the learned Judge held that the post of Store Keeper was not considered as feeder category and as such the appellant herein could not have been considered for promotion. Relying upon the provisions of the said Rules and several decisions of the apex Court viz. , Dr. Relying on the said rules, the learned Judge held that the post of Store Keeper was not considered as feeder category and as such the appellant herein could not have been considered for promotion. Relying upon the provisions of the said Rules and several decisions of the apex Court viz. , Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 964 and in b. Krishnaiah v. State of A. P. , 1973 APHN index 91, it was held that the rules which were prevailing on the date of vacancy shall prevail over the subsequent ones and the qualifications of the respective candidates should have been considered as on the date when the vacancy arose. ( 4 ) SRI Pratap Narain Sanghi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant inter alia submitted that as the employees are working in an aided private educational institution, the aforementioned rules whereupon reliance has been placed by the writ petitioner, are not applicable in their case. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the date of decision to fill up the vacancy is the relevant date whereupon only the cases of eligible candidates are required to be considered. In any event, the learned counsel would urge, that as the parties had appeared before the Selection Committee and participated therein, they are estopped from questioning the decision of the selection Committee. ( 5 ) MR. J. Sudheer, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent on the other hand submitted that the question as regards the applicability of the principle of estoppel had not been raised before the learned single Judge and in any event, there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. It was however submitted that the action of the official respondents herein is mala fide inasmuch as the post of Senior Assistant was kept vacant for a long time and only when the appellant herein became eligible for consideration, the proposal for filling up the said post was sent to the Government whereafter only the Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting. The learned Counsel submitted that the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution had thus been violated by reason of the inaction on the part of the college authorities. The learned Counsel submitted that the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution had thus been violated by reason of the inaction on the part of the college authorities. In support of the aforementioned contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on B. Krishnaiah v. State of A. P. (supra) and on Baij Nath sharma v Hon ble Rajasthan High Court at jodhpur, 1998 (7) SCC 44 . ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Higher Education however submitted that for filling up the post of Senior Assistant, the permission of the Government was imperative as the Management of private educational institution had no jurisdiction to fill up any post on permanent basis. It has been pointed out that the occasion to fill up the vacancy arose only in December, 1995. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the following facts are admitted. The appellant herein was appointed as Attender on 6-10-1969. He was promoted to the post of Store keeper on 16-8-1977. The writ petitioner-first respondent was appointed as Typist on 9-9-1977. In November, 1989, he passed all the tests prescribed for holding the post of Senior Assistant. On 16-9-1992, the post of Store Keeper was introduced in the feeder category to the post of Senior assistant. On 21-4-1993, the post of Senior assistant fell vacant. On 6-5-1995, the respondent No. 3 requested the department seeking promotion to fill up the post. On 21-5-1995, the appellant herein became qualified to be promoted upon passing the departmental tests. On 11-12-1995, permission was granted by the department to fill up the post. It is also admitted that the seniority list was prepared as under: "1. Shambhu Dayal Agarwal 2. Mohanlal Agarwal (appellant) 3. Satyaprasad (Respondent No. 1 ). ( 8 ) BEFORE adverting to the question raised in this application, we would like to point out that before us, the proceedings of the Director, Higher Education, A. P. , hyderabad dated 17-12-1983 had been placed in terms whereof, the methods of recruitment of non-teaching staff of aided colleges had been laid down on the representation of A. P. Aided Colleges Non-Teaching staff Association. ( 9 ) SO far as the post of Store Keeper is concerned, the minimum educational qualification is said to be a pass of SSC and the said post can be filled up either by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from other services. ( 9 ) SO far as the post of Store Keeper is concerned, the minimum educational qualification is said to be a pass of SSC and the said post can be filled up either by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from other services. As regards the post of senior Assistant, the following qualifications had been laid down. "1. Must have put in not less than 3 years of service of which 2 years are necessary in the category of Junior assistant/typist/steno-Typist; 2. Must have passed in the departmental test for Subordinate Officers, Part I and dy. Inspectors Test. 3. Typist/ Steno Typist are not eligible either for promotion or transfer before they have satisfactorily completed the period of probation in their respective categories". ( 10 ) HOWEVER, by reason of the proceedings No. 1321/pc-1/92 dated 16-9-1992, the procedure in regard to the promotion of internal candidates as issued in G. O. Ms. No. 680, Education dated 12-9-1980 and proceedings of Director of Higher Education in Rc. No. 3260/k2-4/80 dated 17-12-1983 has been prescribed. It was directed therein:"in the reference second cited, the procedure for recruitment of non-teaching staff for various categories in private/ aided colleges has been issued. The same procedure is being followed hitherto by the Managements of Private colleges. It is brought to the notice of the Director of Collegiate Education, that some of the Managements are not implementing the orders issued in the GO first cited, wherein it was informed that the managements should consider to promote the internal candidates for upper category posts. 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 Teacher category posts viz. , Museum Keeper, Rerdarium 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 go first cited. Similarly, in the case of Store Keeper, hitherto, it was considered that it was a direct category viz. , seniority post. As in the case of Government Sector, there is no direct recruitment procedure for the posts of Junior Assistant and Store Keeper in Public Sector. They should strictly follow the procedure as laid down in the go first cited. Similarly, in the case of Store Keeper, hitherto, it was considered that it was a direct category viz. , seniority post. As in the case of Government Sector, there is no direct recruitment procedure for the posts of Junior Assistant and Store Keeper in Public Sector. As such, the posts of senior Assistant Typist, Steno-Typist and store Keeper may be created as single category and promotions to the post of senior Assistant may be given as per common seniority". ( 11 ) ONE of the questions which has been raised in this application is as to whether for the purpose of filling up of Senior assistant, it was incumbent upon the participants to work as a Typist for two years. The answer to the said question must be rendered in negative, in view of the fact that the post of Store Keeper was also included as a feeder category as contra -distinguished from the category of Junior assistant/typist/steno-Typist. It is therefore not correct to contend that the knowledge of typing was a must for filling up the post of Senior Assistant. ( 12 ) IN the instant case, the A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and the a. P. Ministerial Service Rules will have no application inasmuch as the non-teaching staff in aided college do not hold the civil posts. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the Director of higher Education or the Management of the college had adopted the provisions of the said rules for the purposes of appointment or promotion to the non-teaching staff of private aided college. The post of Store keeper became feeder category to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 16-9-1992. The appellant herein also could have been considered for promotion subject to his possessing requisite qualifications thereof. ( 13 ) IT has not been disputed before us that before the post of Senior Assistant could be filled up, the Management of the Institution was required to get prior permission thereof from the competent authority. As noticed hereinbefore, such permission was accorded on 11-12-1995 to the Management. Even prior thereto the appellant was declared to have passed the departmental test. As noticed hereinbefore, such permission was accorded on 11-12-1995 to the Management. Even prior thereto the appellant was declared to have passed the departmental test. ( 14 ) IN the afore-mentioned situation, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge erred in holding that the date when the vacancy has arisen would be the crucial date for determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned. The learned single Judge appears to have wrongly pressed into service the decision in Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of bihar (supra ). The said decision in fact is an authority for the proposition that the date of taking decision to fill up the vacancy is the relevant date and thus, a person must be qualified on the said date. It was held therein:"assuming that the appellant s contention is correct that 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 up 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 in 19-8-1965 when the appellant had also completed his 3 years of experience. But obviously that is irrelevant. Decisions 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 appointments 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". It was further held:"it is not disputed that respondents 5 and 6 had the necessary academic medical qualifications for appointment and if they also had the necessary teaching experience, as held by the Government, they would be eligible for appointment as Lecturers in Surgery. It was further held:"it is not disputed that respondents 5 and 6 had the necessary academic medical qualifications for appointment and if they also had the necessary teaching experience, as held by the Government, they would be eligible for appointment as Lecturers in Surgery. The Medical council had recommended that a lecturer in Surgery should be a Registrar or should have held an equivalent post in surgery or like Clinical Department for atleast 3 years in a teaching institution. It is clear from what has been already stated about respondents 5 and 6 that they were holding a post equivalent to the Registrar or Resident Medical Officer for much more than 3 years in the medical College Hospital and hence they were eligible for appointment as lecturers". ( 15 ) WE may consider the fact of the matter from another angle. Although the post is lying vacant, it is not incumbent upon the competent authority to fill up the said post for germane reasons. The decision can be taken not to fill up the vacancy and thus, only when the decision is taken for filling up the vacancy, the cases of all eligible candidates must be taken into consideration. In Dr. K. Ramulu v. Dr. K. Suryaprakash rao, 1997 (3) SCC 59 , it has been held: "in this perspective, the question arises: whether the omission on the part of the government in preparing and finalising the panel for promotion of the Assistant veterinary Surgeons to the post of assistant Director is vitiated by any inaction on the part of the Government and whether it is in violation of Rule 4 of the General Rules. It is seen and is not in dispute that under Rule 4 of the general Rules all first appointment to the State Service and all promotions/ appointments by transfer shall be made on grounds of merits and ability and shall be made in accordance with the special Rules. It also envisages that list of approved candidates requires to be prepared in accordance with the rules. It also envisages that list of approved candidates requires to be prepared in accordance with the rules. It shall be prepared ordinarily during the month of September every year on the basis of estimated vacancies sent in terms of sub-clause (iv) and 30th of September shall be reckoned as the qualifying date to determine the eligibility of the candidate for such appointment, which shall cease to be in force on the afternoon of the 31st December of the succeeding year or till the new panel is prepared, whichever is earlier. Second proviso to the Rules provides that if the vacancies are not available for the particular panel period, subject to the appointing authority recording a certificate to that effect; or "where the appointing authority does not consider it necessary" it is not necessary to prepare the panel. At this stage, it is necessary to emphasise that the opinion of the Government by the proviso would not be arbitrary. As rightly pointed out by Shri L. Nageshwara Rao, the decision not to prepare the panel should be on valid and relevant considerations and it should not be arbitrary decision taken by the Government. The object of Rule 4 is that all eligible candidates should be considered in accordance @ page-SC 1806 with the Rules. Panel should be finalised and operated so as to give an opportunity to the approved candidates to scale higher echelons of service which would augment the efficacy of service, inculcate discipline and enthuse officers to assiduously work hard and exhibit honesty and integrity in the discharge of their duties. Nonetheless, it is seen that clause (ii) of the second proviso gives power to the State Government not to prepare the panel and to consider the cases though the vacancies are available, as stated earlier, pending amendment of the rules or recasting the rules afresh. The Government have taken conscious decision not to fill up any of the pending vacancy until the process is completed which they had started on "administrative grounds". As seen, the process was completed and the rules have come into force w. e. f. June 12, 1996. 12. The same ratio was reiterated in UOI v. K. V. Vijesh, (1996) 3 SCC 139 Paras 5 and 7 = (1996 AIR SCW 1361 ). As seen, the process was completed and the rules have come into force w. e. f. June 12, 1996. 12. The same ratio was reiterated in UOI v. K. V. Vijesh, (1996) 3 SCC 139 Paras 5 and 7 = (1996 AIR SCW 1361 ). Thus, it could be seen that for reasons germane to the decision, the Government is entitled to take a decision not to fill up the existing vacancies as on the relevant date. Shri H. S. Gururaja Rao, contends that this Court in, V. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284 ) = air 1983 SC 852 ), had held that the existing vacancies were required to be filled up as per law prior to the date of the amended rules. The mere fact that rules came to be amended subsequently does not empower the Government not to consider the persons who are eligible prior to the date of appointment. It is seen that the case related to the amendment of the rules prior to the amendment of the rules. Two sources were available for appointment as Sub-Registrar, namely, UDCs and LDCs. Subsequently, rules came to be amended taking away the right of the LDCs for appointment as Sub-Registrar. When the vacancies were not being filled up in accordance with the existing rules, this court had pointed out that prior to the amendment of the rules, the vacancies were existing and that the eligible candidates were required to be considered in accordance with the prevailing rules. Therefore, the mere fact of subsequent amendment does not take away the right to be considered in accordance with the existing rules. As proposition of law, there is no dispute and cannot be disputed. But the question is: whether the ratio in, rangaiah s case, ( AIR 1983 SC 852 ), would apply to the facts of this case? the Government therein merely amended the rules, applied amended rules without taking any conscious decision not to fill up the existing vacancies pending amendment of the rules on the date the new rules came into force. It is true, as contended by Mr. H. S. Gururaja rao, that this Court has followed the ratio therein in many a decision and those cited by him are, P. Ganeshwar rao v. State of A. P. , (1988) Supp. It is true, as contended by Mr. H. S. Gururaja rao, that this Court has followed the ratio therein in many a decision and those cited by him are, P. Ganeshwar rao v. State of A. P. , (1988) Supp. SCC 740 = AIR 1988 SC 2068 ; P. Mahendranath v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 1 SCC 411 , A. A. Caljon v. Director of Education, (1983) 3 SCC 33 = AIR 1983 SC 1143 , N. T. Dev. v. Karnataka PSC, (1990) 3 SCC 157 , ramesh Kumar Choudha v. State of M. P. , (1996) 7 Scale 619 . In none of these decisions, situation which has arisen in the present case had come up for consideration. Even Rule 3 of the general Rules is not of any help to the respondent for the reason that Rule 3 contemplates @ page-SC 1808 making of an appointment in accordance with the existing rules. ( 16 ) RELIANCE placed by Mr. Sudheer on the decision in B. Krishnaiah v. State of a. P. (supra) is not apposite. The question which arises for consideration was as to whether the rules were to be followed. The learned Judge therein held that the object in framing the rules has been defeated by the officers who had no regard for the rules and who seems to have been under the impression that they are making promotions as if they are domestic servants. ( 17 ) IN the absence of full text of the judgment, it is not possible for this Court to find out all particulars, about the fact situation obtaining therein. But from the operative portion of the decision, it appears that ad hoc or temporary promotions of unqualified persons were made by the State and then regularising their services on the ground that they have subsequently passed the tests. Such is not the position here. By reason of the ad hoc or temporary appointment, the writ petitioner - first respondent did not derive any statutory legal right to be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. In terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution, no person has a right to be promoted. He has only a right to be considered therefor. His case thus, could be considered for promotion when a decision was taken to fill up the said post and not prior thereto. In terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution, no person has a right to be promoted. He has only a right to be considered therefor. His case thus, could be considered for promotion when a decision was taken to fill up the said post and not prior thereto. There cannot be any doubt that every body has legitimate expectation of being promoted. ( 18 ) IN Baij Nath Sharma v. Hon ble rajas than High Court at Jodhpur (supra), the Apex Court does not lay down any law in absolute terms that the vacancies must be filled up as and when they occur. Certain hopes were expressed that timely action would be taken in future so as to avoid disappointment to those expecting promotion. The Apex Court was considering in that case about the delay in making appointments to the posts of Judicial Officers and those observations came in the wake of fact situation obtaining therein that the case of the appellant therein for promotion was considered only after his retirement. The Apex Court referred to Union of India v. K. K. Wadera, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625 = air 1990 SC 442 , wherein it was observed that promotion to vacant posts should be effective from the date of the order and not from the date when the posts fell vacant. ( 19 ) IF the writ petitioner thought that on the date when he had a right to be appointed in 1993, he should have questioned the inaction of the Management and would not have taken part in the selection process. Further more in this case, the respondents prior to filing of the writ petition never contended that the Appellant herein was not eligible to be considered. He submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the departmental Promotion Committee without any demur whatsoever. ( 20 ) IN Muneendra Kumar v. Rajiv govil, AIR 1991 SC 1607 , it has been held:"the next question which arises for consideration is as to what direction would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. We do not agree with the High Court to quash the entire selection made by the Board for the posts of Assistant Engineers (civil ). We do not agree with the High Court to quash the entire selection made by the Board for the posts of Assistant Engineers (civil ). It may be noted that Rajeev Govil, Vivek aggarwal and Gyanendra Srivastava who remained unsuccessful had filed the writ petitions after taking chance and fully knowing the percentage of marks kept for interview and group discussion. It is no doubt correct that they cannot be estopped from challenging the rule which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, but in modulating the relief, their conduct and the equities of those who have been selected are the relevant considerations. " ( 21 ) IN K. V. L. Kameswari v. Andhra university, 1994 (1) ALT 123 , it has been held:"it is, however, relevant to note that the petitioner who is expected to know the provisions of Section 34-A of the Act, having appeared before the Committee knowing that its constitution was not in compliance with Section 34-A of the act, cannot raise her objection at this stage of these proceedings. She took the chance of being selected by the committee and chose to raise objections, only when her hopes turned into disillusionment. We are not satisfied of the bona fides of the petitioner in raising the objection since petitioner participated in the proceedings of a Committee which she knew was not constituted according to law". ( 22 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.