T. Nandakumar Singh, J.:- 1. The petitioner, who is retiring on superan­nuation in the month of February, 2012 is knocking the door of the temple of justice for the matter relating with his promotion to the post of Deputy Director. 2. Heard Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Th.Ibohal, learned senior G. A., appearing for respond­ent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of re­spondent No.5. 3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: The petitioner, who is a graduate, initially joined as Progress Assistant on 04.05.1979 on regular basis in the Directorate of Tribal Development and Backward Classes, Manipur (for short 'TD Department) and pro­moted to the higher post of Junior Research Officer, and subsequently appointed to the post of Assistant Director in the TD Depart­ment, w.e.f. 07.09.2002 vide order of the Governor of Manipur being No, 1/26/98-TD(A),lmphal 14.08.2007. 4. In supersession of all previous Rules in this regard, in exercise of power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Manipur made the Rules regulating the methods of recruitment to the post of Deputy Director in the Tribal Development Department, Manipur, called 'Tribal Development Department, Manipur (Deputy Director) Regulation, 1985' vide notification No. 1/77/79-RR/DP(I), Imphal 06.08.1985 (for short 'Recruitment Rules, 1985'). Under the Recruitment Rules, 1985 meth­ods of recruitment to the posts of Deputy Director are 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion failing which by deputation; and all the Assistant Directors/Special Officers, in the Tribal Development Depart­ment with five years' regular service in the grade are eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director. MCS officers having five years' regular service in the grade are eligible for filling up the post of Deputy Director on deputation and period of deputation is ordi­narily for three years and extendable up to five years. 5. The State Government in compliance with the requirements under Article 320(3)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India con­sulted the Manipur Public Service Commis­sion (MPSC) by sending proposed amend­ment to the Recruitment Rules, 1985 vide DP's letter No.1//21/93-RR/DP dated 29.10.1999. The MPSC under the letter of the Joint Secretary being No.5/25/82-RR/MPSC, Imphal 21.08.2001 approved the draft Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director by giving reasons for approval that "lateral induction of fresh candidates at this level is not desirable. The MPSC under the letter of the Joint Secretary being No.5/25/82-RR/MPSC, Imphal 21.08.2001 approved the draft Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director by giving reasons for approval that "lateral induction of fresh candidates at this level is not desirable. There is sufficient number of Assistant Directors on feeder-line and 1/3 of Assistant Directors have been reserved for direct recruitment. Considering all these fac­tors, the method of recruitment may be pre­scribed as "by promotion" in ColumnNo.10. All Assistant Directors of the Department possessing degree from a recognized Univer­sity and with five years regular service in the grade may be made eligible for promotion in order to maintain quality." 6. After consultation with the MPSC the Governor of Manipur in supersession of all previous rules issued in this regard and in ex­ercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made the Rules, called "Tribal Development & Backward Classes Department, Manipur (Deputy Director) Recruitment Rules, 2003" (for short 'Recruitment Rules, 2003). Under the Recruitment Rules, 2003 post of Deputy Director is cent-percent (100%) promotional post and Assistant Directors of the Tribal Development possessing degree from a rec­ognized University and with five years regu­lar service in the grade is eligible for promo­tion to the post of Deputy Director. The peti­tioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director as early as 7.9.2007 under the Recruitment Rules, 1985 and also under the Recruitment Rules, 2003. 7. By an executive order of the Govern­ment of Manipur i.e. order of the Governor of Manipur being No.1/21/93-RR/DP dated 04.11.2003 rescinded the Recruitment Rules, 2003 with immediate effect and revived Re­cruitment Rules, 1985 with immediate effect and until further orders. Again, the State Government issued another order being No. 1121/93-RR/DP dated 17.04.2009 in supersession of earlier order dated 04.11.2003 in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 3 09 of the Constitution of India that the Recruit­ment Rules, 2003 had been rescinded w.e.f. 11.02.2003 until further orders. Being ag­grieved by the said orders of Government of Manipur dated 04.11.2003 and 17.04.2009, two Assistant Directors had approached this Court by filing joint writ petition being WP(C) No. 1592 of 2003 for quashing the said two orders i.e. 04.11.2003 and 17.04.2009. Being ag­grieved by the said orders of Government of Manipur dated 04.11.2003 and 17.04.2009, two Assistant Directors had approached this Court by filing joint writ petition being WP(C) No. 1592 of 2003 for quashing the said two orders i.e. 04.11.2003 and 17.04.2009. This Court (Division Bench) had finally disposed of WP(C) No. 1592 by passing final judgment and order dated 30.07.2010 by quashing the impugned order dated 17.04.2009; however, in that final order this Court made an obser­vation that quashing of the impugned order dated 17.04.2009 shall not have the effect of automatic revival of the impugned order dated 04.11.2003. 8. As the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 17.04.2009 for rescinding the Recruitment Rules, 2003 w.e.f. 11.02.2003 had been quashed by this Court (Division Bench) vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2010, Recruitment Rules, 2003 came into operation inasmuch as unavoidable con­sequence of quashing the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 17.04.2009 by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 1592 of 2003 is coming into op­eration of the Recruitment Rules, 2003. 9. The Governor of Manipur, again, issued another order, in exercise of power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India was pleased to revive/restore the Recruitment Rules, 1985 with immediate ef­fect and until further order vide order of Governor of Manipur being No. 1121/93-RR/DP dated 14.03.2011. As the order dated 14.03.2011 was not issued in supersession of the Recruitment Rules, 2003 there are two Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Di­rector in operation in the TD Department, i.e. Recruitment Rules, 1985 and Recruitment Rules, 2003. Being aggrieved by the said or­der of the Governor of Manipur dated 14.03.2011, petitioner filed the present writ petition for quashing the same i.e. order dated 14.03.2011 and also for a direction to the State Government and its concerned authori­ties/officers to fill up the vacant posts of Deputy Director in the Tribal Development & Backward Classes Department, Manipur which were available as on 13.03.2011 by promotion in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, 2003. 10. The respondent No.2, i.e. Commis­sioner/Secretary, (DP), Government of Manipur filed affidavit in opposition dated 05.09.2011 whereinvideparaNo.il stated that 'through oversight, the Order dated 14.03.2011 was issued without superceding the earlier RRs dated 25.5.2003. 10. The respondent No.2, i.e. Commis­sioner/Secretary, (DP), Government of Manipur filed affidavit in opposition dated 05.09.2011 whereinvideparaNo.il stated that 'through oversight, the Order dated 14.03.2011 was issued without superceding the earlier RRs dated 25.5.2003. This bona fide mistake has been brought to the knowl­edge of the Government and necessary ac­tions for rectification of the same has already been taken up on consultation with Law De­partment. In fact, the MPSC has also re­quested to rectify the defect in rescinding the earlier Recruitment Rules of 2003'. This Court (Division Bench) had passed an interim or­der dated 08.04.2011 in the present writ pe­tition for suspending the impugned order dated 14.03.2011. Respondent No.2 also filed af­fidavit dated 16.01.2012 wherein vide para-6 stated that "a vacancy which arose during the currency of a particular Recruitment Rule has to be filled up as per the said Recruitment Rules which existed when the vacancy to the said post arose". 11. This Court (single Bench) passed an order dated 09.09.2010 in WP(C) No. 560 of 2010 filed by one Keishongdin Panmei, Assistant Director, directing the State respondents to consider the case of the peti­tioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director as and when promotion to five va­cancies in the post of Deputy Director is initiated. In the said order dated 09.09.2010 passed in WP(C) No.560 of 2010 it is clearly stated that there are five vacancies as on the date of passing the order, according to the petitioner, which was not denied by the State respondents. 12. The petitioner filed additional affidavit dated 13.01.2012 stating that DPC associ­ated with the MPSC for promotion to four vacancies in the post of Deputy Director was held on 07.12.2011 and the said DPC had considered all the eligible candidates as per the seniority list published on 12.04.2011 vide notification No.7/23/2004-TD(HC) dated 12.04.2011 against the four vacant posts of Deputy Director. It is also stated in the additional affidavit dated 13.01.2012 that the said DPC associated with the MPSC held on 07.12.2011 had recommended four candi­dates for promotion to the four vacant posts of Deputy Director, and on 08.12.2011, MPSC had sent the recommendation to the Administrative Department i.e. to the Princi­pal Secretary/TD & Hills, Government of Manipur. It is also stated in the additional affidavit dated 13.01.2012 that the said DPC associated with the MPSC held on 07.12.2011 had recommended four candi­dates for promotion to the four vacant posts of Deputy Director, and on 08.12.2011, MPSC had sent the recommendation to the Administrative Department i.e. to the Princi­pal Secretary/TD & Hills, Government of Manipur. For verifying the correctness of this fact, i.e. holding of DPC for promotion to the four vacancies in the posts of Deputy Direc­tors on 07.12.2011 and sending of four rec­ommended candidates on 08.12.2011 by the MPSC to the Government of Manipur, Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5, MPSC, had been given chance to take instructions and Mr.Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel, in a very clear term submitted that as per instruc­tions from the MPSC, it is correct that DPC associated with MPSC had already been held on 07.12.2011 for promotion to the four va­cancies in the posts of Deputy Directors in the TD Department and all the eligible candi­dates had been considered and recommen­dations of the MPSC had already been sent to the Administrative Department, i.e. to the Government of Manipur on 08.12.2011. 13. The State respondents also filed an application i.e. MC (WP(C))No.17 of 2012 in the present writ petition seeking permis­sion to issue addendum to the Government Order dated 14.03.2011, which read as fol­lows: "GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR DEPARTMENT OFPERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (PERSONNELDIVISION) ADDENDUM Imphal,the............. No : Please add the following sentence as para 2 of this Department's order No.1/21/93-RR/DP dated 14.03.2011 regarding amendment of Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director in Tribal Department: "2. This is issued in supersession of all previous Orders/Notifications issued by this Department in this regard." Sd/-(MZ Chamthiu) Under Secretary (DP) Government of Manipur." 14. In the above factual backdrop, the writ petitioner who is retiring on superannua­tion in the month of February, 2012, in view of the subsequent development of holding the said DPC associated with the MPSC on 07.12.2011 for promotion to four vacancies in the post of Deputy Director and the said recommendation by the DPC, is seeking a direction from this Court to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to issue order for promoting the candi­dates recommended by the MPSC (DPC) in its meeting held on 07.12.2011, to the posts of Deputy Directors; this court is of consid­ered view that in the event of directing the State respondents, i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to issue necessary order for promotion, there may not be useful purpose, in the given case; in deciding the legality or otherwise of the impugned order for reviving the Recruit­ment Rules, 1985. As on the date of holding DPC on 07.12.2011, Recruitment Rules 2003 was very much in operation as the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 for rescinding the Recruitment Rules, 2003 had already been suspended by an interim order of this Court dated 08.04.2011 which is still in operation. 15. It is the admitted case of both the par­ties that the Government of Manipur vide Office Memorandum being No. 17/2/80-DP, Imphal the 29.04.1999 had issued instruc­tions for promotion to the higher posts which are to be followed by Departmental Promo­tion Committee (DPC) and all the Depart­ments of Government of Manipur. The rel­evant portions of the guidelines/instructions under the Office Memorandum of the Gov­ernment of Manipur dated 29.04.1999 are extracted hereunder: "GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS PERSONNEL DIVISION OFFICE MEMORANDUM Imphal, the 29th April, 1999 Subject: Departmental Promotion Commit­tee and related matters- Consolidated instruc­tions on. No. 17/2/80-DP:…………….. ……………………………….. Frequencies at which D.P.Cs should meet 3.1 The DPCs would be convened at regular annual intervals to draw panels which could be utilized on making promotion against the va­cancies occurring during the course of a year. DPCs may be convened every year if neces­sary on a fixed date e.g. 1st April or May. Hold­ing of DPC meetings need not be delayed or postponed on the ground that recruitment rules for a post are being revised/amended. A vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the recruit­ment rules in force on the date of vacancy, un­less rules made subsequently have been ex-presslv given retrospective effect. ……………….. Preparation of yearwise panels by DPC where they have not met for a number of years. A vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the recruit­ment rules in force on the date of vacancy, un­less rules made subsequently have been ex-presslv given retrospective effect. ……………….. Preparation of yearwise panels by DPC where they have not met for a number of years. 5.4.1 Where for reasons beyond control, the DPC could not be held in a year (or years), even though the vacancies arose during that year (one years), the first DPC that meets thereafter should follow the following procedures:- (a) Determine the actual number of regu­lar vacancies that arose in each of the previous/year (s) immediately preceding and the actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the current year sepa­rately. (b) Consider in respect of each of the years those officers only who would be within the field of choice with reference to the vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year onwards. (c) Prepare a "Select List" by placing the select list of the earlier year above the one for the next year and so on." 16. As stated above, State respondents vide para-6 of the additional affidavit of respondent No.2 had clearly stated that "it is well settled position of law that a vacancy which arose during the currency of a particu­lar Recruitment Rule has to be filled up as per the said Recruitment Rules which existed when the vacancy to the said post arose". Under the Office Memorandum of the Government of Manipur dated 29.04.1999 DPCs would be convened at regular annual intervals to draw panels which could be utilized on mak­ing promotion against the vacancies occur­ring during the course of a year. DPCs may be convened every year if necessary on a fixed date i.e., 1st April or May. Holding of DPC meetings need not be delayed or post­poned on the ground that recruitment rules for a post are being revised/amended. A vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the recruitment rules in force on the date of va­cancy, unless rules made subsequently have been expressly given retrospective effect. Holding of DPC meetings need not be delayed or post­poned on the ground that recruitment rules for a post are being revised/amended. A vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the recruitment rules in force on the date of va­cancy, unless rules made subsequently have been expressly given retrospective effect. Where DPC could not be held in a year (s) even though vacancies arose during that year (s) the first DPC that meets thereafter should determine the actual number of regular va­cancies that arose in each of the previous/year (s) immediately preceding and the actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be fi 1 led i n the current year separately; and con­sider in respect of each of the years those officers only who would be within the field of choice with reference to the vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year onwards and prepare a "Select List" by placing the select list of the earlier year above the one for the next year and so on. 17. The Apex Court in Y. V. Rangaiah & Ors Vs Sreenivasa Rao & Ors : (1983) 3 SCC 284 held that vacancies in the promo­tional post occurring prior to the amendment have to be filled up in accordance with the un-amended Rules. Panel prepared for filling those vacancies under the amended Rules had been set aside, In that case, there are instructions of the Government of Andhra Pradesh that prompt preparation of panel is essential both for increasing Administrative clliciency and also for filling up vacancies with-Out delay. All panels are to be prepared promptly in the month of September every year. Para -3 and 9 of the SCC in Y.V Rangaiah & Ors's case (supra) read as follows. "3. Apart from the aforesaid rules, the Gov­ernment have also issued very clear instructions from time to time viz., GO. Rt.No. 1042-G A (Ser-A) Department dated June 15, 1966, GO. Ms No.485-G. A (Ser-A) Department dated July 26,1968, GO. Ms.No.202-GA (Ser-A) Depart­ment dated April 4, 1969 and Memo No.1476/Service/A/72-2 dated November 7, 1975. The Memo dated November 7,1975 in paragraphs 5 and 6 states: 5. It needs hardly be urged that prompt preparation of panels is essential both for increasing administrative efficiency, and also for filling up vacancies without delay. 6. Ms.No.202-GA (Ser-A) Depart­ment dated April 4, 1969 and Memo No.1476/Service/A/72-2 dated November 7, 1975. The Memo dated November 7,1975 in paragraphs 5 and 6 states: 5. It needs hardly be urged that prompt preparation of panels is essential both for increasing administrative efficiency, and also for filling up vacancies without delay. 6. All the appointing authorities are di­rected to bear in mind the instructions is­sued on the preparation of panels and en­sure that the panels are prepared promptly in the month of September every year." 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 even the petitioners in the two representation petitions who ranked higher than respondents 3 to 15 would not have been deprived of their right 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 State-wide 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." 18. The ratio laid down in Y.V Rangaiah & Ors's case (supra) was followed by the Apex Court in B L. Gupta &Anr Vs. M. C. C : (1998) 9 SCC 223 . The Apex Court in B.L. Gupta's case (supra) held that vacancy which arose prior to 1995 should be filled up according to 1978 Rules only and 1978 Rules was amended in the year, 1995; and further held that vacancy which arose after 1995 are to be filled up according to the amended Rules. Para-8 and 9 of the SCC in B.L. Gupta's case (supra) read as follows: "8. Para-8 and 9 of the SCC in B.L. Gupta's case (supra) read as follows: "8. In these appeals the main contention which has been raised by the aggrieved erst­while Junior Clerks is that the vacancies which had arisen prior to 1995 amendment of the Rules could only be filled as per the Rules of 1978. Therefore, the High Court could not have di­rected the vacancies which had arisen prior to 1995 to be filled according to 1995 Rules. It was secondly submitted that the number of vacan­cies which existed being 171 and if the minimum standard which was required to be attained by the persons taking the examination was 50%, as was alleged to have been stated in the coun­ter affidavit filed in the High Court and 171 can­didates were available, then the number of posts which should have been filed was 171 and the shortfall in filing up of ihe vacancies should be made good. Mr.Sanghi, on the other hand, sub­mitted that as his clients have been working as Assistant Accountants ever since 4.1.1990 and a large number of them had retired and only about 140 or so remained in service and who are likely to retire in the near future, it would be very unj ust that they who were previously work­ing as Senior Clerks and were senior to the other appellants, who were erstwhile Junior Clerks, should be required to take the examination and compete with them. 9. When the statutory rules had been framed in 1978, the vacancies had to be filled only ac­cording to the said Rules. The Rules of 1995 have been held to be prospective by the High Court and in our opinion this was the correct conclusion. This being so, the question which arises is whether the vacancies which had arisen earlier than 1995 can be filled as per the 1995 Rules. Our attention has been drawn by Mr Mehta to a decision of this Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti v Karnataka Public Service Commission : (1990) 3 SCC 157 . This being so, the question which arises is whether the vacancies which had arisen earlier than 1995 can be filled as per the 1995 Rules. Our attention has been drawn by Mr Mehta to a decision of this Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti v Karnataka Public Service Commission : (1990) 3 SCC 157 . In that case after referring to the earlier decisions in the cases of Y.V. Rangaiah v J.Sreenivasa Rao: (1983) 3 SCC 284 , P.Ganeshwar Rao v State of A.P: 1988 Supp SCC 740 and A.A.Calton v Director of Education: (1983) 3 SCC 33 it was held by this Court that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of ihe Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by liie amended Rules. Though the High Court has referred to these judgments, but for the reasons which are not easily decipherable its applicabil­ity was only restricted to 79 and not 171 vacan­cies, which admittedly existed. This being the correct legal position, the High Court ought to have directed the respondent to declare the re­sults for 171 posts of Assistant Accountants and not 79 which it had done." 19. The Apex Court also followed the ra­tio laid down by the Apex Court in Y.V Rangaiah & Ors's case (supra) in B. Gane-shwar Rao & Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors: 1988 (Supp) SCC 740. Para-8,9 and 10 of the SCC in Ganeshwar Rao & Ors's case (supra) read as follows: "8. In Eramma v Verrupanna: (1966) 2 SCR 626 the words "the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter" in Section 8 of the Hinrlu Succession Act, 1956 came up for con­sideration. In that case this Court held that the words "the proputy of a male Hindu dying in­testate shall devolve" occurring in Section 8 made it very clear that the property whose devo­lution was provided for by that section must be the property of a person who had died after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act and it could not be the property which belonged to a Hindu male who had died before the said Act came into force. The effect of the use of the word 'arising' in the Special Rules qualifying the word 'vacancies' is also the same. The effect of the use of the word 'arising' in the Special Rules qualifying the word 'vacancies' is also the same. The clause which was introduced in the Special Rules by the amendment made on April 28,1980 cannot, therefore, be interpreted as having any effect on the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of the amendment. We do not find any indication in the amendment that was made on April 28. 1980 that it would be applicable to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of the amendment even by necessary implica­tion. In the instant case the State Government had taken the decision even before the amend­ment came into force to fill up the vacancies by direct recruitment according to the law prevail­ing then. Had it been the intention of the State Government while promulgating the amendment that the amendment would be applicable to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of the amendment simultaneously the State Gov­ernment would have addressed a letter to the Public Service commission to make recruitment in accordance with the Special Rules as amended on April 28.1980. No such action was taken by the State Government in this case. 9. We may at this stage refer to another de­cision of this Court in Y.V.Rangaiah v J. Sreenivasa Rao: (1983) 3 SCC 284 in which in a similar situation this Court has observed in para­graph 9 at page 289 thus: 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. 10. The facts of the case before us are in no way different from the facts involved in the above decision." 20. The Apex Court in Rajasthan Pub­lic Service Commission Vs. 10. The facts of the case before us are in no way different from the facts involved in the above decision." 20. The Apex Court in Rajasthan Pub­lic Service Commission Vs. Chanan Ram & Anr: (1998) 4 SCC 202 held that all va­cancies carried forward got merged with the new vacancies and are to be filled up under the prevailing Recruitment Rules or the new Recruitment Rules prevailing at the time of holding DPC. The Apex Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission's case (supra) had considered the fact of the case that all vacancies in the post of Assistant Director (Juniors) which had been abolished and re-designated as Marketing Officers were no more in existence; and in this given fact, the Apex Court held that since the posts of As­sistant Director (Juniors) had been abolished and no more, no question arose for filling up the vacancy in the post of Assistant Director (Junior) according to the old Recruitment Rules and all the vacancies carried forward got merged with the new vacancies arose when the amended Rules came into force. Para 14 of the SCC in Rajasthan Public Service Com­mission's case (supra) read as follows: "14.........Once it is held that the old va­cancies were in posts which no longer existed after April 1995, there remained no occasion to consider whether these old vacancies could be filled in by applying earlier rules of recruitment to the very same posts. It is true that old vacan­cies were carried forward and got merged along with three more vacancies and became 26 va­cancies for the newly created posts of Market­ing Officers, but that does not mean that still the earlier 23 vacancies remained existing un­der the Rules for appointing eligible persons to the 23 erstwhile vacant posts of Assistant Di­rectors (Junior). There were no such posts after April 1995 in the cadres of the Rajasthan Agri­cultural Marketing Service as seen earlier. Those vacancies were carried forward and got merged with the further vacancies in the newly created posts of Marketing Officers. There were no such posts after April 1995 in the cadres of the Rajasthan Agri­cultural Marketing Service as seen earlier. Those vacancies were carried forward and got merged with the further vacancies in the newly created posts of Marketing Officers. But all the 26 vacancies, therefore, after April 1995 had to be treated to be vacancies in the newly created posts of Marketing Officers and these vacan­cies had to be filled in necessarily as per Rule 17 by issuing fresh advertisement for filling up these newly created 26 posts of Marketing Of­ficers and that is precisely what was done by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission by issuing fresh advertisement dated 8.1.1996." 21. The Apex Court in Deepak Agarwal & Anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors: (2011) 6 SCC 725 held that it is the rules which are prevalent at the time when the con­sideration took place for promotion, would be applicable. A candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the "rule in force" on the date the consideration took place. The Apex fur­ther held that "there is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises". The distinctive fact in Deepak Agarwal's case (supra) is that there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to either prepare a yearwise panel of the eligible candidates or of the selected candidates for promotion, nor executive instruction/order of the Government to prepare yearwise panel. Para-15, 25 and 26 of the SCC in Deepak Agarwal's case (supra) read as follows: "15. Mr.Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the State submits that the ratio in Y. V. Rangaiah: (1983) 3 SCC 284 is not applicable in the facts of this case. There is no require­ment under Rule 7 of the applicable Rules in this case to prepare a yearwise panel of the se­lected candidates. Therefore, no acquired or vested right of the appellant has been taken away. Under Rule 7, the vacancies have only to be identified. The right accrues only at the time of consideration for promotions. Therefore, the amendment has not been given a retrospective effect. Therefore, no acquired or vested right of the appellant has been taken away. Under Rule 7, the vacancies have only to be identified. The right accrues only at the time of consideration for promotions. Therefore, the amendment has not been given a retrospective effect. The matter is covered by the judgment in Dr.K.Ramulu: (1997) 3 SCC 59 as a conscious decision has been taken by the State to exclude the two parts of STO and SSO from the feeder cadre for promotion as DEC. 25. In the present case, there is no statutory duty cast upon the respondents to either prepare a vearwise panel of the eligible candidates or of the selected candidates for promotion. In fact, the proviso to Rule 2 enables the State to keep any post unfilled. Therefore, clearly there is no statutory duty which the State could be mandated to perform under the applicable Rules. The requirement to identify the vacancies in a year or to take a decision as to how many posts are to be filled under Rule 7 cannot be equated with not issuing promotion orders to the candi­dates duly selected for promotion. In our opin­ion, the appellants had not acquired any right to be considered for promotion. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the submissions of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan that the vacancies, which had arisen before 17.5.1999 had to be filled under the una-mended Rules. 26. It is by now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the "rule in force" on the date the considera­tion took place. There is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises. The requirement of filling up old vacancies under the old rules is interlinked with the candidate having acquired a right to be considered for promotion. The right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. Unless, of course, the applicable rule, as in Y.V. Rangaiah: (1983) 3 SCC 284 lays down any particular time-frame, within which the selec­tion process is to be completed. In the present case, consideration for promotion took place after the amendment came into operation. The right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. Unless, of course, the applicable rule, as in Y.V. Rangaiah: (1983) 3 SCC 284 lays down any particular time-frame, within which the selec­tion process is to be completed. In the present case, consideration for promotion took place after the amendment came into operation. Thus, it cannot be accepted that any accrued or vested right of the appellants has been taken away by the amendment." 22. In the present case, there is an order/instruction or/Office Memorandum of the Government of Manipur dated 29.04.1999, discussed above, for preparation of vearwise panels by the DPC and, therefore, ratio laid down by the Apex Court in V. Rangaiah & Ors's case (supra) later on followed in B.L.Gupta's case (supra) and B.Ganeshwar Rao & Ors will be applicable in the present case. The Apex Court in State of Bihar & Ors Vs .Mithilesh Kumar: (2010) 13 SCC 467 held that change in norms of recruitment during pendency of selection process would not be applicable in the selection process. Norms and rules existing on the date when the process of selection begins will control such selection and alteration of such norms would not affect the continuing process un­less specifically the same were given retro­spective effect. Therefore, any new change in the Recruitment Rules of the Deputy Di­rector shall not have any effect to the said DPC already held on 07.12.2011. 23. The Apex Court in Mohd. Raisul Is­lam & Ors. Vs. Gokul Mohan Hazarika & Ors : (2010) 7 SCC 560 held that recruit­ment process initiated prior to amendment will be governed by the Rule(s) basing on which selection process was commenced. The Government is not entitled to take a decision not to fill up any vacancy before the amendment of the Rules, once the selection process started under the old Rules. In other words, Government cannot decide to fill up vacan­cies according to the newly amended Rules once the selection process started under the old Rules, but Cabinet can take decision to fill up all vacancies under the new Rules pro­vided selection process is not started under the old Rules. The Apex Court in Mohd Raisul Islam & Ors's case (supra) made the distinc­tion of the ratios laid down in K. Ramulu (Dr.) Vs. Dr. The Apex Court in Mohd Raisul Islam & Ors's case (supra) made the distinc­tion of the ratios laid down in K. Ramulu (Dr.) Vs. Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao: (1997) 3 SCC 59 that the Government is entitled to take decision not to fill up any of the vacancies before the proposed amendment to the Rule was affected and held that the ratio laid down in K. Ramulu (Dr.)'s case (supra) would be applicable to the cases where the selection process had not been started under the old Rules. In the present case, the DPC associ­ated with the MPSC for promotion to the four vacancies in the post of Deputy Directors had admittedly been held on 07.12.2011 and sent its recommendation to the State Government on 08.12.2011. as such, the State Govern­ment cannot take the decision not to fill up any vacancies in the posts of Deputy Direc­tor before the proposed amendment to the existing Recruitment Rules, 2003 is affected. Para-29, 30, 35, 36, 37 and 39 of the SCC in Mohd Raisul Islam & Ors's case supra read as follows: "29. We have carefully considered the sub­missions made on behalf of the respective parties and the decisions cited by them. The point at issue in this SLP is confined to the question as to whether the 1960 Rules as amended would govern the seniority of the persons recruited in the process of selection commenced earlier to the amendment. 30. It is not disputed that an advertisement was published on 22.5.1984, for filling up 30 posts in each category of ACS Class 1 and ACS Class II Officers in terms of unamended Rule 4 of the 1960 Rules and that a written test was conducted by APSC under the said Rules be­tween 5.6.1984 and 1.8.1985 and the result of the said written examination was declared on 22.2.1986. Viva voce test was conducted by APSC from 25.4.1986, to 30.5.1986, in respect of those candidates who had qualified in the writ­ten examination. A list of recommended candi­dates was thereafter submitted by APSC to the Government on 22.6.1986. 35. While arriving at the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench had occasion to refer To the decision of this Court in K. Ramulu (Dr.) v Dr. A list of recommended candi­dates was thereafter submitted by APSC to the Government on 22.6.1986. 35. While arriving at the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench had occasion to refer To the decision of this Court in K. Ramulu (Dr.) v Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao: (1997) 3 SCC 59 , wherein the question which fell for consideration was whether the Government was entitled to take a decision not to fill up existing vacancies on the relevant date unless the process of amendment was completed. This Court, after taking into consideration Rule 4 of the A.P. Subordinate Service Rules, held that the object of the said Rule was that all eligible candidates should be considered in accordance with the Rules. This Court held that the Government was entitled to take a conscious decision not to fill up any of the vacancies before the proposed amendment to the Rules was effected. 36. While at first glance the decision in K.Ramulu case (supra) may appear to be on a par with the facts of the instant case, there is yet a distinction which cannot be ignored. While in the present case a process of selection had been set in motion under the existing Rules and a list of selected candidates had also been rec­ommended by APSC, in K. Ramulu case (supra) the Government had merely taken a decision not to fill up the vacancies until the amended Rules came into force. In K Ramulu case (su­pra) no process had been initiated for the pur­pose of filling up any of the vacancies. In such circumstances, where no candidate had either been invited or interviewed or selected for ap­pointment, as has been done in the instant case, this Court rightly held that the Government was competent to take a decision not to fill up the vacancies. 37. There can be no dispute that as a matter of policy the Government may take a conscious decision not to fill up vacancies for justifiable reasons, but at the same time, having started a process of selection under the unamended Rules, it cannot take the stand that it still was entitled not to make appointments of persons from amongst the candidates selected teims of the process initiated under the old Rules. In fact, in the instant case, the recommendation made by APSC was submitted to the Govern­ment on 22.6.1986, before the amended Rules came into operation on 21.7.1986 whereby the quota system was discarded. In such a situa­tion, in our view, the decision in K. Ramulu case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 39. We agree with the view taken by the High Court which has been reiterated by Mr.Goswami in keeping with the well-established principle that once a process of selection is started on the basis of the existing Rules of recruitment, the said Rules will continue to gov­ern the selection process, notwithstanding any amendment which may have been effected to the said Rules in the meantime." 24. Mr. Th .Ibohal, learned senior GA ap­pearing for the State respondents placing heavy reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Rajkumar Sharma & Ors: (2006) 3 SCC 330 and Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank Ltd VsAmrikSingh & Ors: (2003) 10SCC 136 strenuously contended that selectees cannot claim appointment as mere inclusion in the select list does not confer any right to be ap­pointed even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. 25. This Court, incidentally authored by one of us (T. Nandakumar Singh, J) in Akoijam Dorendro Singh & Ors. Vs. State ofManipur & Ors: 2006 (Suppl) 1 GLT 461 held that mere selection does not confer any right to an appointment, it can be denied only on some valid and reasonable ground, not arbitrarily. Para-11 and 12 of the GLT in Akoijam Dorendro Singh & Ors's case (su­pra) read as follows: "11. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Shankarsan Dash Vs Union of India: (1991) 3 SCC 47 held that ordinarily notification for ap­pointment to the vacancy in the post or/in the service of the government merely amount to an information to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the posts. Unless the rel­evant recruitment rules so indicate, the state is not under legal duty to fill up any of the vacan­cies. However, it does not mean that the state has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancy has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. Unless the rel­evant recruitment rules so indicate, the state is not under legal duty to fill up any of the vacan­cies. However, it does not mean that the state has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancy has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the state is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruit­ment test and no discrimination can be permit­ted. The ratio laid down by the (C/B) of the Apex Court in Shankarshan Desh Vs Union of India (supra) are that the selected candidates do not acquire any right to the post; but the decision of the State Government not to fill up the vacancy has to be taken bona fide for ap­propriate reasons and state cannot act in an arbitrary manner in taking decision not to fill up the vacancies. 12. The Apex Court again in Govt of Orissa Vs Harprasad Das & Ors: AIR 1998 SC 375 is of the similar view that mere empanelment or in­clusion one's name in the select list does not give him a right to be appointed. So also if the government decided not to make further ap­pointment for a valid reason, it cannot be said that it has been acted arbitrary by not appoint­ing those whose names are included in the se­lect list, whether to fill up a post or not is a policy decision unless it is shown to be arbitrary does not open to the tribunal interfere with such decision of the government and direct it to make further appointment." 26. The Division Bench of this Court in Ibrahim Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Assam: 2000 (3) GLT 382 held that Government cannot take decision not to appoint selected candidates arbitrarily and to go for fresh se­lection. Para 13 of the Akoijam Dorendro Singh & Ors's case (supra) read as follows: "13. The Division Bench of this court in Ibrahim Ali & Ors Vs State of Assam: 2000 (3) GLT 382 had discussed the right of the selected candidates and also the selection of the candi­dates by the Selection Committee for appoint­ment to the posts of Field Assistant in the Ani­mal, Husbandary and Veterinary Department, Govt of Assam during the ban period. The Division Bench of this court in Ibrahim Ali & Ors Vs State of Assam: 2000 (3) GLT 382 had discussed the right of the selected candidates and also the selection of the candi­dates by the Selection Committee for appoint­ment to the posts of Field Assistant in the Ani­mal, Husbandary and Veterinary Department, Govt of Assam during the ban period. In that case the case of the state respondents for not appointing the selected candidates for appoint­ment to the post of Field Assistant in the Ani­mal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Govt of Assam was that the list of selected can­didates, i.e. list of 1996 was prepared during the subsistence of an embargo on appointment im­posed by the state government and list was not approved by the competent authority and in addition to that fresh advertisement had been issued as the trained candidates of subsequent bases should also be given a chance to com­pete for the available posts. The Division Bench of this Court in that case, i.e. Ibrahim Ali (su­pra), held that the reasons given for not ap­pointing the selected candidates by the State Govt i.e. the state of Assam, do not inspire this court to conclude that the state government is justified in taking a decision to go for fresh se­lection. And failure to take action by the con­cerned authority and government after prepa­ration of the select list in the selection held in 1996 is totally arbitrary and devoid of any sub­stantial reasons, Paras-3 and 10 of the GLT in Ibrahim Ali & Ors Vs State of Assam (supra) are quoted below: "3. The respondent State in their affida­vit in opposition advanced reasons to jus­tify the above deprivation. According to the State, the list of 1996 was prepared during the subsistence of an embargo on appointment imposed by the State Government and the said list was not approved by the com­petent authority; in addition, the State also pleaded that the fresh advertisement was issued as the trained candidates of subse­quent batches should also be given a chance to complete for the available posts. 10. The last point argued by the learned State counsel that empanelment of names do not confer any right on the selected can­didates to get appointment. 10. The last point argued by the learned State counsel that empanelment of names do not confer any right on the selected can­didates to get appointment. Our attention has also been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash, Appel­lant Vs Union of India, Respondent (1991) 3 SCC 47 in order to show that the selected candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies. The same ratio is also available in Government of Orissa Vs Haraprasad Das & Ors (1998) 1 SCC 487 . There cannot be any dispute as to the position of law in this behalf. But in order to defeat the claim of the selected candidates, the Government must come out with adequate reasons. The reasons available in this case, as discussed above, do not inspire this Court to conclude that the State Government is justified in tak­ing a decision to go for fresh selection. It is pertinent to mention here that failure to take action by the concerned authorities and the Government after preparation of the select list in the selection held in 1996 is totally arbitrary and devoid of any sustainable rea­son." 27. For the foregoing discussions, in the given case, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are di­rected to issue order for promoting the can­didates, recommended by the MPSC i.e. DPC in its meeting held on 07.12.2011 and sent to the State Government by the MPSC on 08.12.2011, to the posts of Deputy Di­rectors, within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order or/be­fore the petitioner retires on superannuation, so that the petitioner, if recommended by the MPSC, would get the benefit of promotion before his retirement on superannuation. This direction is given in the peculiar facts and cir-cumstances of this case, keeping in view of the ratios laid down by the Apex Court in the cases discussed above. 28. As the present writ petition is disposed of with the above direction, parties are left open to question or to challenge the impugned amendment of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director by filing new writ petition, if necessary. Permission is also granted to the Government to issue Adden­dum for which permission is sought for by filing MC (WP(C)) No. 17 of 2012. Permission is also granted to the Government to issue Adden­dum for which permission is sought for by filing MC (WP(C)) No. 17 of 2012. But the Addendum should not be with retrospective effect taking into consideration of the given case of the present writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions.