1. The petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Bearers under Jammu and Kashmir Educational (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 1979 Rules), in various schools of District Rajouri, during the period 1993-2002. The 1979 Rules identified Laboratory Bearers as one of the sources of promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant in the grade of Rs. 200-320. The relevant part of the Rules may be extracted as under:- Class Category Designation With grade Minimum qualification for direct recruitment Method of Recruitment V Lab Asst (200-320) Matriculation with Science 75 % by direct recruitment 25 % by promotion from Lab Bearers who are at least Matriculates with 2 Yrs experience as such. 2. A final seniority list of the Library Bearers was prepared, and the petitioners figured at Serial Nos. 3,8,10 and 47 in the seniority list. The Rules of 1979 were replaced by Jammu and Kashmir School Education (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 2008 (for short 2008 Rules) notified vide SRO 308. The new Recruitment Rules i.e. 2008 Rules, while enhancing the promotional quota from 25% to 50%, added new sources of promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant. It would be advan­tageous to reproduce herein relevant part of Schedule - II (A), prescribing method of recruitment and minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Labora­tory Assistant and Laboratory Bearers:- Class Category Designation With Minimum Method of Recruitment grade qualification for direct recruitment IV A.................. I B Lab Asst (200-320) 10+2 with 50 % by direct recruitment science of 50% by promotion from VII equivalent of Schedule II-A having from any Matriculation qualification recognized with 3 Yrs substantive University/service in that class. Board VIII Orderlies Peons, Chowkidars Minimum 50 % by direct recruitment (2550-3200) Book Keepers, Lab Matric 50 % by selection from Bearers, maximum Middle Pass contingent/Attendants, Mallies 10+2 Local fund paid employees Qardeners, Ground by a Committee duly Coolies, Waterman constituted for the purpose Chainmen. by the concerned Director Farmhands, School Education. Animal Keepers, Gasman Farashes, Packers Conductors and Safaiwallas 3. A bare look on the 2008 Rules reveals that in addition to Lab Bearers other Class VIII employees in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 are made eligible to promo­tion as Lab Assistant with three years substantive service in Class VIII. by the concerned Director Farmhands, School Education. Animal Keepers, Gasman Farashes, Packers Conductors and Safaiwallas 3. A bare look on the 2008 Rules reveals that in addition to Lab Bearers other Class VIII employees in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 are made eligible to promo­tion as Lab Assistant with three years substantive service in Class VIII. The petition­ers contend that though the 2008 Rules enhanced the promotional quota by 25%, yet the Rules by including other categories of Class VIII service diminish the promotional quotas of Laboratory Bearers. It is pointed out that under 1979 Rules Laboratory Bearers constituted exclusive source for promotion to the post of Labo­ratory Assistants. The petitioners without disputing the right of the respondents to amend, modify and re-frame recruitment rules insist that the posts of Laboratory Assistants available and vacant on 15th October, 2008 i.e. before the 2008 Rules came into force are to be filled up in accordance with 1979 Rules. It is pleaded that 81 posts of Laboratory Assistants were vacant and unfilled on the date the 2008 Rules came into force and that these posts are to be filled up in accordance with 1979 Rules, treating the Laboratory Bearers as exclusive source against the promotional quota out of the available vacant vacancies of Laboratory Assistants. The petitioners on the strength of averments made in the petition, seek following reliefs:- a) A writ of Mandamus commanding respondents to consider and promote petitioners herein as Laboratory Assistants on the basis of their seniority and merit, as is reflected in seniority list Annexure A to the writ petition. b) A writ of Certiorari quashing SRO 308 dated 16.10.2008 so far as it clubs under Class VIII of Schedule II (a) categories other than Lab. Bearers making them a source for promotion to the post of Lab. Assistant along with Lab. Bearers as per seniority list of 2009 Annexure -E to the petition, so far as petitioners have been included in the said seniority list, as being unconstitutional, illegal and against the service conditions of the petitioners. 4. Bearers making them a source for promotion to the post of Lab. Assistant along with Lab. Bearers as per seniority list of 2009 Annexure -E to the petition, so far as petitioners have been included in the said seniority list, as being unconstitutional, illegal and against the service conditions of the petitioners. 4. The respondents in reply to the writ petition insist that the revision of recruitment rules was necessitated due to bifurcation of Education Department into Higher Education and School Education Departments and that change in Rules has brightened up the promotional avenues of Class VII and Class VI employees, inasmuch as 25% post of Junior Assistants are to be filled up by promotion from the Class VIII and as against 25%, 50% of the post of Laboratory Assistants are in terms of 2008 Rules to be filled up by promotion from Class VIII. It is maintained that 2008 Rules have been made for the benefit of the petitioners and other members of different catagories of School Education Department. The respondents have not taken any specific stand as regards petitioners claim that the vacancies of Labora­tory Assistants available prior to coming into force of 2008 rules are to be filled up in accordance with 1979 Rules. The respondents have not also specifically denied that 81 vacancies of Laboratory Assistants were available in District Rajouri prior to coming into force of 2008 Rules. The response to the averments made in the writ petition is evasive. 5. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. There is no scope for any disagreement with the legal preposition that constitution of service, mode of recruitment to a service, minimum qualification required and the sources of appointment as also their inter-se entitlement of different categories of service to promotion belong to exclusive province of the Government. These matters involve policy decisions and a member of the service, let alone a stranger to the service, cannot question or dictate the policy decision, as long as these are within parameters of law. 7. These matters involve policy decisions and a member of the service, let alone a stranger to the service, cannot question or dictate the policy decision, as long as these are within parameters of law. 7. Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and others v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others (2004) 2 SCC 632, commenting upon the power of Govern­ment to constitute a service and prescribe its mode of constitution, held:- 10............Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifica­tions and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avemies of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgama­tion as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/catego­ries of services, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a govern­ment servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service." 8. However, in the present case, the petitioners, independent of challenge to authority of the Government to revise the recruitment rules, insist that the vacancies of Laboratory Assistants available immediately before 2008 Rules, are to be tilled up in accordance with Rules of 1979. It may be stated at the cost of writ petition that the respondents in their reply to the writ petition, have not denied that 81 vacancies of Laboratory Assistants were unfilled at the time the 2008 Rules were made and notified. There is, thus, merit in the petitioners claim that even if, the respondents are held to have absolute authority to revise, amend or recast the Recruitment Rules, the vacancies available before 2008 Rules came into force were to be filled up in accordance with 1979 Rules. The petitioners on the vacancies of Laboratory Assis­tants becoming available acquired a right to be considered for promotion against the quota available to them in accordance with Rules occupying the field and the right that accrued to the petitioners cannot be taken away by the revised Rules. 9. In Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao 1983 (3) SCC 284 , it has been held that the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. The Court held that there was not the slightest doubt that the posts felt vacant prior to the amended Rules are to be governed by the old Rules and not the new Rules. The legal principle was reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal 1997 (10) SCC 419 . The Court observed:- "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." 10. 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." 10. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is allowed and by a writ of Mandamus, the respondents are directed to accord consideration to the promo­tion of the petitioners against the posts of Laboratory Assistants, lying vacant and available immediately before Jammu and Kashmir School Education (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 2008 came into force, of course, in accordance with Jammu and Kashmir Educational (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979, having due regard to the seniority position of the petitioners.