Judgment ( 1. ) AGGRIEVED by an order issued by the respondent-Bank vide PRS/2000-2001/circu!ar No. 23/2083, dated 17th July, 2000 promoting eleven officers of Scale I to Scale II, one of its officer who has been superseded had preferred this writ petition which has been referred to this Division Bench by the Single Bench. ( 2. ) FACTS of the case in brief giving rise to this petition are that the respondent No. I/bank, which was established and incorporated under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, had eleven vacancies of officers in Scale II which were to be filled by promotions of its officers belonging to Scale I. Such promotions were governed by the Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988, which with effect from 29-7-1998 were substituted by new Rules, known as Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998. The Rules of 1998 require a written test which was not prescribed in the old Rules of 1988. The respondent No. 1/bank, promoted its officers to Scale II on the aforesaid eleven posts vide its impugned order applying the Rules of 1988. ( 3. ) THE contention of the petitioner was that out of the aforesaid eleven posts only three posts came into existence prior to the enforcement of the new Rules of 1998 and the remaining eight posts came into existence after the enforcement of the said Rules of 1998. However, before the impugned order came into existence apprehending that the respondent-Bank would adopt the procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1998 only for filling up of these vacancies the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2000 (Kamlesh Kumar Kaurav v. Chambal Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors.), which was disposed of vide order dated 12-7-2000 of a Single Bench holding that the Rules in force prior to 1998 had ceased to be effective with the enforcement of the new Rules of 1998 and the selection process has to take place in terms of the Rules of 1998. But, the respondent-Bank in disregard to that decision of this High Court has applied the old Rules of 1988 for filling up the above said eleven vacancies by promotions. ( 4. But, the respondent-Bank in disregard to that decision of this High Court has applied the old Rules of 1988 for filling up the above said eleven vacancies by promotions. ( 4. ) ACCORDING to the respondent-Bank the abovesaid decision of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2000 was not known to it till the completion of the procedure for promotion. According to it the promotion procedure was completed on 11-7-2000, i. e. , a day prior to the date of order passed in the said writ petition. All the eleven vacancies had come into existence prior to 29-7-1998, i. e. , the date from which new Rules of 1998 came into force and, therefore, all the eleven posts being in existence prior to 29-7-1998 were filled up by it in accordance with the procedure provided under the old Rules of 1988 especially in view of the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and Ors. , reported in JT 1997 (3) SC 198. ( 5. ) IN the order dated 12-7-2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2000 it was observed by the learned Single Bench that the ratio of the case in R. Dayal (supra) was not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case before it because in that case the selection process was over before the date on which the new Rules of 1998 came into force while in the case before it the selection process was to commence after the enforcement of the new Rules. However, the other learned Single Judge who was initially hearing this writ petition was of the view that the view expressed in the said Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2000 was, in his opinion, not correct and, therefore, he thought it proper to place the matter before the Division Bench. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel on both sides were heard at length by us and the relevant records were perused. ( 7. ) ON perusal of the record so far as the facts are concerned it transpires that all the said eleven vacancies did come into existence prior to 29-7-1998, i. e. , before coming into force of the Rules of 1998. ) LEARNED Counsel on both sides were heard at length by us and the relevant records were perused. ( 7. ) ON perusal of the record so far as the facts are concerned it transpires that all the said eleven vacancies did come into existence prior to 29-7-1998, i. e. , before coming into force of the Rules of 1998. Annexure R-4 in this respect clearly shows that out of these eleven posts three were approved in the meeting dated 16-10-1996 and the remaining eight posts were approved in the meeting dated 19-6-1998. Annexure R-7 further shows that the Selection Committee for consideration of the eligible candidates for promotion to these eleven posts was convened on 11-7-2000, and they took interview of all the eligible candidates and finalized the list which was approved by the Board of Directors to be given effect from 12-7-2000. Thus the selection process was clearly completed before the order dated 12-7-2000 was passed in Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2000. The factual position regarding the date on which the said eleven vacancies came into existence and of the completion of selection in violation of the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2000 as mentioned by the petitioner was not correct and stands demolished by Annexures R-4 and R-7. ( 8. ) THE learned Counsel for petitioner had argued on the basis of wrong assumption that the impugned promotions were made in violations of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2000. The selection was made on 11-7-2000, i. e. , a day prior to passing the order dated 12-7-2000 in Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2000. ( 9. ) ADMITTEDLY, the selection for promotion to eleven posts have been made after the Rules of 1998 has came into force. Therefore, the only question that is left for determination of this Court is whether for all these eleven vacancies which came into existence prior to the date of enforcement, i. e. , 29-7-1998 of the Rules of 1998, would be governed by old Rules of 1988 or by the new Rules of 1998 which had come into force when the selection was made. ( 10. ) IN this respect the Honble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and Ors. ( 10. ) IN this respect the Honble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and Ors. (supra) reiterating the principle enunciated by it in its earlier decision in the case of Y. V. Rangaiah and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors. , reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 , had observed that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules and the vacancy which arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled up in accordance with the law existing as on the date when the vacancy arose. It is true, that in the case of R. Dayal and Ors. (supra) even the D. P. C. which considered the claims of the eligible candidates was convened, met and completed its process prior to 24-7-1995, i. e. , the date from which the amendment in the Rules in that case came into force. But, because of that only, it cannot be said that if the selection process is not completed before the enforcement of the new Rules then it would not governed by the old Rules. In this respect reference need be made to earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Y. V. Rangaiah and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors. , reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 , wherein the vacancies existed prior to the date of coming into force of the amendment and were filled subsequent to the amendment, in accordance with amended Rules, it was held that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules would still be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. Thus, considering the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the two cases cited above in our opinion the legal position in this respect is, that the vacancies existing prior to amendment in promotion Rules shall be governed by the old unamended Rules and not by the new amended Rules though appointments to them by promotion is made at a time subsequent to the enforcement of the new Rules. In view of this position, the view adopted by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1125 of 2000 was apparently incorrect and the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the present writ petition is the correct one. ( 11. ) CONSEQUENTLY, there is no force in the present writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly.