Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 11.5.2006 (P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, the Tribunal) dismissing the Original Application of the applicant-petitioners declining the relief of quashing order dated 11.10.2005 (A-1). The Tribunal also rejected the prayer for issuance of direction to the official respondents to make promotion on the posts of Tax Assistant in the pre-restructured cadre on the basis of policy decision dated 19.7.2001 and communication dated 6.10.2002 (A-7). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant-petitioners initially joined service as Data Entry OperatorA (for brevity, DEOA) in the respondent department. On 19.7.2001 (A-6), a policy decision was circulated with regard to restructuring of the Customs and Central Excise Department. As per the said circular, the existing cadre of Tax Assistant was merged with the cadres of Assistant Tax Assistant, UDC (Special Pay), DEO Grade C and DEO Grade B and re-designated as Senior Tax Assistant. The existing post in the cadre of UDC, DEO(A) and LDC were merged and redesignated as Tax Assistant (New) except 717 posts of LDC meant for Group D. Therefore, the cadres of DEO(A) and LDC and old Tax Assistant did not remain in existence with effect from 19.7.2001. 3. Upon restructuring, the applicant-petitioners were designated as Tax Assistants w.e.f. 5.5.2003 and as Senior Tax Assistants w.e.f. 30.12.2003. In the year 2004, the Association of the Ministerial Staff-private respondents, who were UDCs before restructuring of various cadres, filed OA No. 1044/CH/2004, seeking directions to the official respondents to hold DPC for filling up the promotional vacancies under the pre-restructured cadre, inter alia, of Tax Assistant and thereafter to finalise the seniority list in the restructured cadre. On 20.7.2005, the Tribunal passed an order in the aforementioned OA directing the official respondents to hold DPC for promotion to the grade of Group B and C posts, which were available prior to restructuring and thereafter to act accordingly (A-2). 4. In order to implement the above said order, the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise (CZ)-respondent No. 4 finalised a list of 38 erstwhile UDCs/ad hoc Tax Assistants (private respondent Nos. 5 to 42) for convening meeting of DPC for promotion to the grade of Tax Assistant (Pre-restructured cadre) forthe year 2002- 2003. 4. In order to implement the above said order, the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise (CZ)-respondent No. 4 finalised a list of 38 erstwhile UDCs/ad hoc Tax Assistants (private respondent Nos. 5 to 42) for convening meeting of DPC for promotion to the grade of Tax Assistant (Pre-restructured cadre) forthe year 2002- 2003. It has been alleged by the applicant-petitioners that majority of the above mentioned private respondents were junior to them as Tax Assistant as well as Senior Tax Assistant. The further case of the applicant-petitioners is that during the year 2002-03 there was no cadre of UDC nor there was any vacancy of Tax Assistant (pre-restructured cadre) in view of the provisions of the policy circular dated 19.7.2001, inasmuch as, these posts came into existence only after restructuring. 5. The applicant-petitioners submitted a representation that there was no vacancy of Tax Assistant (Pre-restructured Cadre) and hence there was no need of holding any DPC to consider promotions of the private respondents, especially in the light of the policy circular dated 19.7.2001. They asserted that without taking any decision on the said representation, the meeting of the DPC was held on 8.11.2005. Faced with this situation and apprehending their reversion, the applicant- petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 1040/CH/2005, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 11.5.2006 (P-1). Hence, this petition. 6. Mr. Gurdev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners has vehemently contended that vide policy circular dated 19.7.2001, the department of Customs and Central Excise stood restructured, as a result of which number and nomenclature of various grades/posts underwent changes. In terms of the aforesaid instructions the process of filling up the posts of Superintendents, which became available on restructuring was initiated from the post of Inspectors. The process for filling up resultant vacancies by promotion was also initiated and Tax Assistants/ UDCs/UDC (Selection Grade) were given promotion on such posts. The claim of the Ministerial Staff which has been adjudicated by the Tribunal is with regard to the resultant vacancies of Tax Assistant/UDCs occurring due to the promotion to the post of Inspectors in pre-restructured cadre under the old rules. However, there remained no resultant vacancies of Tax Assistants, UDCs etc. The claim of the Ministerial Staff which has been adjudicated by the Tribunal is with regard to the resultant vacancies of Tax Assistant/UDCs occurring due to the promotion to the post of Inspectors in pre-restructured cadre under the old rules. However, there remained no resultant vacancies of Tax Assistants, UDCs etc. in view of the policy circular dated 19.7.2001 of restructuring as there is specific condition in para 2 of the aforesaid circular that all the posts at different levels as per Annexure-I attached with the circular, stood sanctioned with Immediate effect. Therefore, under the old rules there is no post of Senior Tax Assistant and as per Serial No. 19 of Annexure- I, these are newly created posts and does not find mention in the old rules. 7. Learned counsel, then referred to para 4(vii) of the written statement filed by the official respondents before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1044/CH/2004, wherein it is the specific stand of the department that after restructuring there was no vacancy in the pre-restructured cadre of Tax Assistant/UDC (Special Pay)/UDC required to be filled up as no such cadre posts were in existence at that point of time. Moreover, in the OA preferred by the applicant-petitioners the department has not denied the stand taken in the earlier OA and it has been stated that they have initiated the process of promotion in compliance of the orders dated 20.7.2005 passed by the Tribunal. 8. Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, learned counsel forthe private respondents has submitted that it would be wrong on facts to say that with the issuance of restructuring scheme, the posts were merged and no post of UDC/UDC (Special Pay)/Tax Assistant existed. According to the learned counsel vacancies were available with the department but the same could not be filled up due to ban imposed vide order dated 10.9.2001 (R-4/ B) which was later on lifted. It has been further submitted that by holding of DPC no right of the applicant-petitioners is to be affected since they were not eligible and were not in the feeder cadre to be eligible for promotion as Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants prior to restructuring of cadre, which has come into existence w.e.f. 5.5.2003 and the DPC has been held in order to implement the order passed by the Tribunal. 9. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance we are of the considered view that vacancies in fact were in existence in terms of the old rules, prior to coming into force of new rules in 2003. On account of the ban on filling up the vacancies in 2001, no step could be undertaken to fill them up. The ban on filling up the vacancies was lifted in the year 2002 but even then no DPC for filling up these vacancies could be conducted. The affected persons, thus, approached the Court for issuance of necessary directions and accordingly directions were issued to fill up such vacancies which were in existence prior to promulgation of the new rules on 5.5.2003. The official respondents in compliance of such orders had started the process of convening DPC for filling up the vacancies by promotion to the posts of Group B and C, which were available prior to restructuring and thereafter act accordingly. It would be necessary to notice the contents of the written statement showing the vacancy position in the grade of Tax Assistant (Pre-restructured cadre for the year 2002-2003, as depicted in the letter dated 6.10.2005 (A-8):- "STATEMENT SHOWING THE VACANCIES IN THE GRADE OF T.A. (Prerestructured cadre) FOR THE RECRUITMENT YEAR 2002-2003. 1. Total cadre strength in the grade of T.A. (Prerestructured cadre) 54 2. Working strength of T.As (Pre-restructured cadre) including Ad-hoc Insp. 3 3. No of vacancies i) Existing 51 ii) Anticipated Nil 4. Representation of SC candidates as per available Working strength 1 5. Representation of ST candidates as per available Working strength Nil 6. Representation of PH candidates as per available Working strength Nil 7. Manner in which vacancies arose Nil i) Existing 2 vacancies of 2001-2002 48 due to promotion of TAs(Prerestructured grade) to the grade of Inspector. 1 dye to resignation of Sh. Parvinder Singh (SC),TA ii) Anticipated Nil" 10 A bare perusal of the aforementioned statement would reveal that 48 posts had fallen vacant due to promotion of Tax Assistants in pre-restructured grade to the post of Inspector. Two vacancies were found to have fallen vacant in the year 2001- 2002 and one due to resignation of Shri Parvinder Singh, Tax Assistant. Parvinder Singh (SC),TA ii) Anticipated Nil" 10 A bare perusal of the aforementioned statement would reveal that 48 posts had fallen vacant due to promotion of Tax Assistants in pre-restructured grade to the post of Inspector. Two vacancies were found to have fallen vacant in the year 2001- 2002 and one due to resignation of Shri Parvinder Singh, Tax Assistant. It is established beyond doubt that the vacancies prior to enforcement of new rules were in existence and they were accordingly filled up keeping in view the eligibility of the respondents. The principle of old vacancy old rule would apply as per law laid down by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Y.V. Rangaiya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 852. Therefpre, there is no merit in instant petition. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the instant petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Petition dismissed