Judgment :- Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. The petitioner seeks to challenge, by this writ petition, the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.6681 of 1999 dated 05.05.2000. 2. The facts, in brief, are follows: (a) The petitioner was appointed as Typist in 1965 and later promoted as Junior Inspector in 1973 and later as Development Officer in 1990. As he fulfilled the requisite qualification as prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.399 Industries and Commerce (HL) Department dated 23.09.1985 and described as Andhra Pradesh State Handlooms and Textiles Services Rules, he was eligible to be considered for the post of Assistant Director. The relevant Rule 3 dealing with qualifications for the said post is as follows: 3. Qualifications: No person shall be eligible for appointment to the category specified in column (2) of the Table below by the method specified in column (3) unless he possesses the qualifications specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) thereof: - (b) Accordingly, the name of the petitioner was included in the panel for the year 1994 95. He was accordingly promoted to the said post of Assistant Director on 30.12.1995. While so, under a show cause notice dated 06.08.1999 the first respondent called upon the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be reverted from the post of Assistant Director to the post of Development Officer for not passing the Accounts test for the Executive Officers prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.1 Industries & Commerce (HL) Department dated 02.01.1995. The aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 02.01.1995 is the Andhra Pradesh Handlooms and Textiles Services Special Rules, which were issued in suprecession of the earlier rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.399 dated 23.09.1985. The petitioner has sent replies dated 31.08.1999 and 05.09.1999 justifying his promotion and claiming that he having crossed 45 years of age, he is entitled to the benefit of exemption under G.O.Ms.No.165 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 22.04.1997. The said representation, however, was rejected by orders of the first respondent and proceedings bearing Rc.No.8293/95-E2 dated 05.11.1999 were issued reverting the petitioner to the post of Development Officer. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present O.A.No.6681 of 1999. (c) The respondent herein filed a counter, inter alia, contending that firstly, the promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Director on the basis of the meeting of the DPC dated 16.09.1994, which recommended the panel of Development Officers for promotion by transfer as Assistant Directors. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present O.A.No.6681 of 1999. (c) The respondent herein filed a counter, inter alia, contending that firstly, the promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Director on the basis of the meeting of the DPC dated 16.09.1994, which recommended the panel of Development Officers for promotion by transfer as Assistant Directors. However, the said panel was approved only on 07.02.1995 vide orders of the Government in G.O.Rt.No.103 Industries and Commerce (HL.1) Department dated 07.02.1995. However, by then the new Special Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 02.01.1995 had come into force. Under the new rules, the eligibility and qualifications required to hold the said post on transfer was as follows: 6. Qualifications: No person shall be eligible for appointment to the category specified in column (1) in the Table below by the method specified in column (2) unless he possesses the qualifications specified in the corresponding entry in column (3). The respondents further stated that as the petitioner had not passed the Accounts test for Executive Officers or the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officer Part I & II and though the DPC recommended his case for promotion prior to the coming into force of the new rules, the Government by its memo No.79/HL-1/94/8 dated 27.03.1995 exercised powers under Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’) and permitted the Commissioner for Handlooms to promote the Development Officers, who are in the approved panel as per G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 07.02.1995 referred to above subject to the condition that they should pass the test within the period of probation failing which they will be liable for reversion as Development Officers. (d) Based on the above, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director conditionally by making it clear that he should pass the Accounts test within the period of probation failing which he will be liable for reversion. The respondents, further, state that the petitioner did not pass the requisite test but claimed exemption under G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 22.04.1997 on the ground that he has crossed 45 years of age. The respondents, further, state that the petitioner did not pass the requisite test but claimed exemption under G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 22.04.1997 on the ground that he has crossed 45 years of age. Since the petitioner had not passed the test, he was issued a show cause notice dated 06.08.1998 and after considering the explanation of the petitioner dated 31.08.1999 and 05.09.1999, the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the panel list was approved after new rules had come into force wherein passing of the Accounts test is mandatory for considering the case for aforesaid promotion to the post of Assistant Director. The petitioner having not fulfilled the conditions under his conditional promotion, therefore, he was reverted with immediate effect. It was also claimed by the respondents that the plea of the petitioner that he is entitled to exemption from passing the test under G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 22.04.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.225 General Administration dated 18.05.1999 is rejected as the aforesaid exemption is not applicable in view of the Government Memo.No.10922/SER.C.98 dated 26.03.1998, and the said exemption is available only for first promotion. 3. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings, the tribunal considered the rival contentions and came to the conclusion that passing of the requisite test under the new rules is necessary and merely because the panel containing the name of the petitioner was prepared prior to the coming into force of the new rules, it would not make any difference in view of the fact that the said panel was approved only after the new rules came into force. It was also noticed that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption from passing the said test and consequently, the OA was dismissed on the ground that the applicant filed to acquire the qualifications and he did not choose to make an attempt to pass the test prescribed. The aforesaid order is in challenge in this writ petition. 4. We have heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5. Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended firstly that when the panel was approved containing the name of the petitioner no conditions were attached, secondly, he submits that the vacancies to which the petitioner was promoted arose prior to the enforcement of the new rules. 5. Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended firstly that when the panel was approved containing the name of the petitioner no conditions were attached, secondly, he submits that the vacancies to which the petitioner was promoted arose prior to the enforcement of the new rules. He, therefore, contends that the existing vacancies have to be governed by the old rules. He, further, contended that even if the conditions are imposed while promoting the petitioner under the order of promotion dated 30.12.1995, the said conditions are void and non-est in law and no such conditions could have been imposed when they were not applicable under the old rules and the vacancies having been arisen prior to the coming into force of the new rules, the said conditions are inapplicable. He also submitted that the service conditions of the petitioner stand protected and his entitlement to promotion as Assistant Director would stand denied to him merely because his empanelment was made during the currency of the old rules. The new rules, which were later enforced, cannot have retrospective effect. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Y. V. RANGAIAH v. J. SREENIVASA RAO AIR 1983 SC 852 and another decision in A. MANOHARAN v. UNION OF INDIA 2008 (4) SCJ 686. 6. Learned Government Pleader, on the contrary, contends that mere empanelment of the petitioner during the currency of the old rules is not relevant inasmuch as admittedly the said panel has been approved by the Government under G.O.Rt.No.103 dated 07.02.1995 by that time, the new rules had already come into force with effect from 02.01.1995 vide G.O.Ms.No.1. He, therefore, submits that when the new rules are covering the field specific order was passed by the Government by Memo.No.79/HL-1/94-8 dated 27.03.1995 exercising powers under Rule 17 of the Rules, whereby promotions of Development Officers in the approved panel, who have not passed the necessary accounts test, was permitted to be made subject to the condition of their passing the test within the period of probation. He submits that only, thereafter, that the order of promotion dated 30.12.1995 was issued promoting the petitioner temporarily to the post of Assistant Director subject to his passing the requisite test within the probation period. He submits that only, thereafter, that the order of promotion dated 30.12.1995 was issued promoting the petitioner temporarily to the post of Assistant Director subject to his passing the requisite test within the probation period. The said condition itself further stipulated that he would be liable to be reverted on his failure to pass the test. Thus, the petitioner having failed to pass the requisite test is now questioning the very conditions itself, which is not permissible. He also submitted that new rules, which govern the post, mandate that promotions by transfer must satisfy the requisite qualifications under clauses (a) & (b) of column 3 of the table under the new Rule 6. Rule 10 specifically provides that every person appointed as Assistant Director by direct recruitment shall pass the accounts test for Executive Officers within the period of probation. Thus, the Assistant Directors, who are appointed by direct recruitment or by transfer must pass the test as stipulated. He also submitted that the exemption from passing the test as claimed by the petitioner on the ground that he has crossed 45 years of age is rightly rejected by the Government in view of its letter Memo.No.10922/Ser.C/98 dated 26.03.1998 clarifying that the exemption is available only at the sage of first promotion of an employee and admittedly, the petitioner has earned more than one promotion before the present promotion of Assistant Director. Learned Government Pleader has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. R. DAYAL (1997) 10 SCC 419 in support of his submissions. 7. We have considered the aforesaid submissions. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned it cannot be denied that when the panel of Development Officers was approved by the Government on 07.02.1995 the new rules had already come into force. Further, the order of promotion issued to the petitioner is based upon the orders of the Government under Rule 17 of the General Rules, which permitted only conditional promotion. Further, admittedly, the actual order of promotion dated 30.12.1995 contains specific condition that the petitioner must pass the requisite test within the probation period failing which he would be reverted. The petitioner had accepted the said promotion and worked in the said promotional post without any protest. Further, admittedly, the actual order of promotion dated 30.12.1995 contains specific condition that the petitioner must pass the requisite test within the probation period failing which he would be reverted. The petitioner had accepted the said promotion and worked in the said promotional post without any protest. The petitioner has not questioned the said condition and has worked in the promotional post for a period of almost four years till he received the show cause notice dated 06.08.1999. In the OA as well as in the present writ petition the petitioner has contended that he is not bound by the said condition and he is entitled to the benefit of the pre-amended rules. The prayer in the present OA is only to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 05.11.1999 wherein his representation against the show cause notice was rejected and as such what was called in question by the petitioner was only the said order of the first respondent rejecting the cause shown by the petitioner against reversion. 8. We are of the view that, in law, the petitioner is estopped under Section 115 of the Evidence Act from questioning the conditions imposed in the order of promotion when he has accepted the said promotion order and worked in the promotional post for over four years without protest. In fact, in law, the petitioner is deemed to have acquiesced in the said order and accepted the said order without protest. The challenge by the petitioner to the conditions imposed in the said order of promotion in the present OA before the tribunal as well as this writ petition, therefore, suffer from these two fundamental infirmities. 9. However, instead of disposing the matter on technicalities, we have allowed both the learned counsel to argue the matter on merits and we have dealt with the same as hereunder. 10. 9. However, instead of disposing the matter on technicalities, we have allowed both the learned counsel to argue the matter on merits and we have dealt with the same as hereunder. 10. It is to be appreciated that when the new special rules are framed and enforced vide G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 02.01.1995 the notification itself states as follows: “In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supercession of the Special Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.399 Industries and Commerce (HL) Department dated 23.09.1985 as amended from time to time and all the rules issued insofar as they apply to the posts included in this service, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following Special Rules for the Andhra Pradesh Handlooms and Textiles Services.” Thus on and with effect from 02.01.1995 the earlier rules under G.O.Ms.No.399 dated 23.09.1985 stood superceded. There were, thus, no such unamended rules in force when the petitioner’s case for promotion came up. In fact, approval of his panel as well as the order of promotion dated 07.02.1995 and 30.12.1995 respectively are after the enforcement of the new rules and are issued under the new rules. The primary contention of the petitioner, therefore, that he should have been promoted under the old rules and in any case, his promotion is required to be considered under the old rules is not tenable, as the old rules do not exist and only the rules under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 02.01.1995 hold the field. Further, the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the panel having been prepared on 16.09.1994 when the old rules were in force. Further, the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the panel having been prepared on 16.09.1994 when the old rules were in force. The definition of panel under Rule 2 sub-clause (21) of the General Rules is as follows: “2(21) Panel:- “Panel” means the authoritative list of candidates approved for regular appointment to any service, class or category drawn up by the Commission or by the Government or by the appointing authority concerned, but does not include the panel or list prepared for temporary appointment by the appointing authority pending preparation of a panel for regular appointment in accordance with the rules.” Similarly the definition of approved candidates under Rule 2 sub-clause (3) of the Rules is as follows: “2(3) Approved Candidate: - “Approved candidate” means a candidate whose name appears in an authoritative list or candidates approved for appointment to any service, class or category.” Further, the method of preparation of panel is stipulated under Rule 6 of the Rules. 11. A conjoint reading of these provisions would show that mere empanelment of the petitioner under the DPC dated 16.09.1994 is of no consequence as long as the panel is not approved by the competent authority. Indisputably, the panel is approved by the Government on 07.02.1995 after the enforcement of the new rules. Strictly speaking the petitioner was not eligible to be promoted, as he did not fulfill the requirement of passing the test as prescribed under the new rules. However, the Government exercised the powers under Rule 17 of the General Rules and permitted the promotions to be made conditionally to enable the promotees to pass the requisite the test within the probation period. The contention of the petitioner that he was empanelled prior to the coming into force of the new rules is, therefore, not sustainable as the recommendations of the DPC were strictly not in accordance with the new rules and only when the said recommendations were approved by the Government on 07.02.1995 that the panel as contemplated under the rules came to exist. 12. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vacancies having been arisen prior to the coming into force of the new rules, have to be governed by the old rules only, is already rejected as mentioned in the paragraph above. 12. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vacancies having been arisen prior to the coming into force of the new rules, have to be governed by the old rules only, is already rejected as mentioned in the paragraph above. However, it is necessary to deal with the decisions cited by the learned counsel in support of his submission. He has relied upon RANGAIAH’s case (1 supra) and has placed strong reliance upon Para 9, which is as follows: “9. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we find no force in either of the two contentions. Under the old rules a panel had to be prepared every year in September. Accordingly, a panel should have been prepared in the year 1976 and transfer or promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II should have been made out of that panel. In that event the petitioners in the two representation petitions who ranked higher than the respondents Nos. 3 to 15 would not have been deprived of their rights of being considered for promotion. The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not on the Statewide basis and therefore, there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules.” He also placed reliance upon the decision MANOHARAN’s case (2 supra) and particularly para 16 thereof, which is extracted hereunder: “16. Furthermore, Regulations have been amended only with effect from 11.08.2004. It would have a prospective effect. It cannot be applied retrospectively. Any vacancy which has arisen prior to coming into force of the said amended regulation must be filled up in terms of the law as was existing prior thereto. [State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and others [ (1997) 10 SCC 419 ] 13. It would have a prospective effect. It cannot be applied retrospectively. Any vacancy which has arisen prior to coming into force of the said amended regulation must be filled up in terms of the law as was existing prior thereto. [State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and others [ (1997) 10 SCC 419 ] 13. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has relied upon the decision in DAYAL’s case (3 supra) wherein the decision in RANGAIAH’s case (1 supra) is considered. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the aforesaid decisions are relevant and are as follows: “7. The question, therefore, is: whether the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment is correct in law? It is true, as contended by Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, that the determination of vacancies is required to be done under Rule 9 of the Rules and the selection has to be made in accordance with the criteria prescribed under Rule 23 of the Rules. Even Rule 23-A of the Rules prescribes the same procedure and the criteria thereunder was also followed. The revised criteria of eligibility and procedure for promotion of the officers has been prescribed under Rule 24-A of the Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rules 12 envisages as under: "12. (2) The persons enumerated in Column 5 or the relevant Column regarding‘ posts from which promotion is to be made.’ as the case may be of the relevant Schedule shall be eligible for promotion to posts specified against them in Column 2 thereof to the extent indicated in Column 3 subject to their possessing minimum qualifications and experience on the first day of the month of April of the year of selection as specified in Column 6 or in the relevant Column regarding "minimum qualification and experience for promotion", as the case may be." 8. Therefore, it is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that while selecting officers, minimum requisite qualifications and experience for promotion specified in the relevant column, should be taken into consideration against vacancies existing as on 1st April of the year of selection. Therefore, it is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that while selecting officers, minimum requisite qualifications and experience for promotion specified in the relevant column, should be taken into consideration against vacancies existing as on 1st April of the year of selection. But since the Rules cane to be amended and the amendment became effective with immediate effect and clause (11-B) of Rule 24-A indicates that options have been given to the Government or the appointing Authority, as the case may be, to revise the select list as existing as per the law as on the date of the appointment or as may be directed by a competent court, selection is required to be made by the concerned DPC. An appointment made, after selection as per the procedure, to the vacancies existing prior to the amendment, is valid. But the question is: whether selection would be made, in the case of appointment to the vacancies which admittedly arose after the amendment of the Rules came into force, according to the amended Rules or in terms of Rule 9 read with Rules 23 and 24-A, as mentioned hereinbefore? This Court has considered the similar question in paragraph 9 of the judgment above cited. This Court has specifically laid that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not by the amended Rules. Accordingly, this Court had held that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not the amended Rules. As a necessary corollary, the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled in accordance with the law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose. Undoubtedly, the selection came to be made prior to the amendment of the Rules in accordance with law then existing since the anticipated vacancies also must have been taken into consideration in the light of Rules 9 of the Rules. But after the amended Rules came into force, necessarily the amended Rules came into force, necessarily the amended Rules would be required to be applied for and given effect to. But, unfortunately, that has not been done in the present case. But after the amended Rules came into force, necessarily the amended Rules came into force, necessarily the amended Rules would be required to be applied for and given effect to. But, unfortunately, that has not been done in the present case. The two courses are open to he Government or the appointing authority, viz., either to make temporary promotions for the ensuing financial year until the DPC meets or in exercise of the power under Rule 24-A (11-B), they can revise the panel already prepared in accordance with the Rule and make appointments in accordance therewith.” 14. The applicability of the old and the new rules in such situations was already considered by us in earlier judgment in M. VIRUPAKSHA DATTATREYA GOWDA v. HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF AP 2009 (3) ALT 240 where we have referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in P. GANESHWAR RAO V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [1988 (Supp) SCC 740] the relevant portion of Para 12 of the judgment is extracted herein: “7. ...The only question which has now to be considered is whether the amendment made on April 28, 1980 to the Special Rules applied only to the vacancies that arose after the date on which the amendment came into force or whether it applied to the vacancies which had arisen before the said date also. The crucial words in the Explanation which was introduced by way of amendment in the Special Rules on April 28, 1980 were "37 1/2 per cent of the substantive vacancies arising in the category of Assistant Engineers shall be filled by the direct recruitment". If the above Clause had read "37 1/2 per cent of the substantive vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineers shall be filled by the direct recruitment" perhaps there would not have been much room for discussion. The said Clause then would have applied even to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of the amendment but which had not been filled up before that date. We feel that there is much force in the submission made on behalf of the appellants and the State Government that the introduction of the word 'arising' in the above Clause made it applicable only to those vacancies which came into existence subsequent to the date of amendment.” (emphasis supplied) 15. We feel that there is much force in the submission made on behalf of the appellants and the State Government that the introduction of the word 'arising' in the above Clause made it applicable only to those vacancies which came into existence subsequent to the date of amendment.” (emphasis supplied) 15. The applicability of the relevant rules would thus depend upon the language and wording of the statutory rules. The new special rules issued in this case under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 02.01.1995 prescribe under Rule 6 that “No person shall be eligible for appointment to the category specified in column (1) in the table below by the method specified in column (2) unless he possess the qualifications specified in corresponding entry in column (3).” The mandate of rule, therefore, is that no person shall be eligible for promotion except under these new special rules. Further, as mentioned above, the special rules are issued in supercession of the earlier rules. It is not in dispute that it is open to the Government to change the service conditions, prescribed qualifications, alter the mode of recruitment under any services. A bare reading of the new special rules, therefore, does not admit the applicability of unamended rules in any situation. It is, therefore, too difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because the vacancies arose earlier they have to be governed by the old rules. The said contention, therefore, is liable to be rejected. 16. Further, the last of the contentions viz. that the petitioner having crossed 45 years of age is entitled for exemption from passing the accounts test was already rejected by the tribunal in view of the Government memo.No.10922 dated 26.03.1998, which is referred to above. Admittedly, as the present promotion of the petitioner is not his first promotion, in view of the said memo of the Government, he is not entitled for the benefit of exemption. Further, the Full Bench of this Court has considered the aforesaid aspect in GOVERNMENT OF AP v. M. VENKATESWARLU 2007 (5) ALD 579 (FB) and in para 35 the reference is answered as follows: “35. Further, the Full Bench of this Court has considered the aforesaid aspect in GOVERNMENT OF AP v. M. VENKATESWARLU 2007 (5) ALD 579 (FB) and in para 35 the reference is answered as follows: “35. In the result, we answer the reference holding that the first proviso to the ad hoc rule notified in G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999, restricting the benefit of exemption, only to those who have not been promoted even once after their initial appointment in public service, would apply both to selection and non-selection posts and the contrary view expressed by the Division Bench in Rednam Satyanarayana Murthy v. The District Tribunal Welfare Officer, East Godavari District (WP.No.24912 of 2005 dated 22.02.2006), does not lay down the correct law.” 17. In view of this also, the petitioner is not entitled to seek exemption. We, therefore, agree with the reasons given by the tribunal in dismissing the OA and this writ petition also, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.