Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a writ in the nature of declaration, to declare that the amendment to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Fire Services issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1224, Home (Police-XVII) Department, dated 24.09.2008 read with the letter of the first respondent dated 30.09.2008 as unconstitutional, null and void and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Director of Fire and Rescue Services. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 21.10.2008. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner obtained an order of interim stay of G.O.Ms.No.1224, Home (Police-XVII) Department, dated 24.09.2008. A vacate stay application was filed by the respondent State in M.P.No.2 of 2008 together with supporting counter affidavit dated 05.12.2008. But however, this Court by order dated 07.07.2010 made the stay absolute. 3. The contention of the petitioner was that by the amendment to Rule 2 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Fire Services vide by G.O.Ms.No.1130, Home (Police-XVII) Department, dated 19.08.1998, the State Government introduced two methods of recruitment for the post of Director of Fire and Rescue Services, namely promotion from the post of Deputy Director of Fire Service or recruitment by transfer from the Indian Administrative Service or Indian Police Service. The same was challenged by one Samidurai before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.829 of 2004. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application on 27.02.2004. Against the said order, the respondent State filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.30697 of 2006 and the said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench on 28.11.2007. The Division Bench held that the respondent State should first consider the eligible promotees in the feeder category of Deputy Director by drawing a panel and they should resort to appointment by transfer, only if there was no suitable candidate available for promotion. Without doing so, they cannot state that they will resort to appoint the persons by transfer from Indian Administrative Service or Indian Police Service cadre. This was on the basis that the order of Tribunal had already became final in an earlier case. Thereafter, the State Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.1877, Home (Police-XVII) Department, dated 31.12.2007 promoting the said Samidurai, Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services as Officer on Special Duty in the rank of Head of Department. This was on the basis that the order of Tribunal had already became final in an earlier case. Thereafter, the State Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.1877, Home (Police-XVII) Department, dated 31.12.2007 promoting the said Samidurai, Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services as Officer on Special Duty in the rank of Head of Department. The petitioner who became the Deputy Director sent a representation stating that the post of Director of Fire and Rescue Services was vacant and therefore, he wanted his case to be considered. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.13696 of 2008 seeking for a direction to the first respondent State to prepare a panel of eligible Deputy Directors of Fire and Rescue Services fit for promotion to the post of Director of Fire and Rescue Services. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.07.2008 with a direction to the respondent State to consider his representation. 5. It is at this stage, the State Government issued the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.1224, Home (Police-XVII) Department, dated 24.09.2008 deleting the method of appointment by promotion and decided to fill up the post of Director only from the cadre of Indian Police Service officers in the rank of Additional Director General of Police. In the subsequent letter dated 30.09.2008, the State Government informed the petitioner about the amendment of Rule and also informed that the post of Deputy Director was no longer in the feeder category. 6. The contention of the petitioner was that amendment to Rule was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and if that is allowed, the Deputy Directors, who were hitherto, to be considered only as Deputy Directors, without further chance of promotion. He has also referred to the recommendation made by the Standing Fire Advisory Committee. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State, in paras 9 and 10, it was stated as follows: "9........Keeping in view of the enormous responsibilities and the need for reacting to situation of crises like floods, fire etc., the Government proposes to amend the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Fire Service to provide for a senior officer of I.P.S. Cadre in the rank of Additional Director General of Police to Head the Department. Accordingly, a proposal has been called for from Director, Fire and Rescue Services on 04.01.2008 and the same was received from Director, Fire and Rescue Services as earlier as 13.3.2008 i.e., much before the filing of the W.P.No.13696 of 2008 by the petitioner, in order to fill up the post of Director of Fire and Rescue Services, Class-I Post in the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services from the officers borne on Indian Police Service in the rank of Additional Director General of Police. It is wrong on the part of the petitioner to attribute motive the action of the Government in considering the same and it was done only to nullify the order of this Hon'ble Court. The Government have also decided to issue suitable amendment to the existing provision relating to Class-I post in the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services after consulting the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and by following the usual procedures, and necessary amendment has been issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1224, Home (Police-XVII) Department, dated 24.09.2008. In pursuance of the amendment made to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services in G.O.Ms.No.1224, Home (Police-XVII) Department, dated 24.09.2008, the petitioner has been informed in Government Letter No.21598/Police-17/2008-8, dated 30.09.2008 that the amended special rules for the Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services do not provide for Deputy Directors to be the feeder category for the post of Director, Fire and Rescue Services and his representation dated 7.3.2008 and 23.5.2008 are not feasible of compliance. 10........ It is submitted that considering the complexity of the massive Fire and Rescue Services Department and the enormous public interface the department has discharge the function of the department effectively and efficiently in the situation of crises like floods, fire etc., where constant co-ordination with other line departments of the Government is called for, the Government have amended the rules to provide for a office of I.P.S. Cadre of the rank of Additional Director General of Police to head the Department. It is further submitted that to recognise the need to provide for reasonable promotional opportunities to the officers of the level of Deputy Directors in the Fire and Rescue Services Department, Government considering the proposal of Director, Fire and Rescue Services to upgrade the post of Deputy Director to Joint Director." 8. Mr. It is further submitted that to recognise the need to provide for reasonable promotional opportunities to the officers of the level of Deputy Directors in the Fire and Rescue Services Department, Government considering the proposal of Director, Fire and Rescue Services to upgrade the post of Deputy Director to Joint Director." 8. Mr. R. Yashod Vardan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in DEEPAK AGARWAL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [2011 (6) SCC 725] for contending that by amendment to rules denying right to promotion was clearly illegal and in the promotion policy, they should maintain equity. In that case, the Government was advised to have a relook at the promotion policy for further upgradation of posts. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner sought for a similar direction to be issued to the Government for considering the case of Deputy Directors for promotion to the post of Director of Fire and Rescue Services. 9. However, the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner do not help the case of the petitioner. The rule framing power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India is legislative in character and the said rule can be challenged only on the touchtone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the amendment has been made due to the policy adopted by the State Government, wherein the State Government felt that unless the Department is maintained by a member of Indian Police Service holding the rank of Assistant Director General of Police, it will be difficult to coordinate with the various work of the department. It cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable. Merely because the petitioner looses the chance of promotion, that cannot be a ground for making amendment to the Service rules. This Court do not find any arbitrariness in the order passed by the State Government and hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.