JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner has undergone Home Guards Basic Course from 13.06.1988 to 22.07.1988. He has also undergone Elementary Fire Course from 24.07.1990 to 01.09.1990. He submitted an application for considering his candidature for the post of Fireman, pursuant to which, he was called for interview vide letter dated 01.03.1996. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was not selected. The interviews in the year 1996 were held on the basis of Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 20.11.1986. These Rules were repealed by the Rules called ‘The Department of H.P. Fire Services, Fireman Class-III (Non-Gazetted) (Technical Services), Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2007’, notified on 28th September, 2007. According to these Rules, the height required was 155 cms. and as per Rule-10, 50% of posts were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment or on contract basis and 50% by batch-wise from amongst the candidates possessing essential qualification, as prescribed under Rule-7. An amendment was carried out in these Rules on 0 1.05.2009, whereby the minimum height has been increased to 165 cms. The respondent-department has issued an advertisement, whereby the applications were invited for filling up 25 posts of Fireman. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature for the post of Fireman. The interviews were held on 14.02.2012. The result was declared on 18.02.20 12. 24 candidates were selected and out of them 22 have already been appointed. Petitioner was not selected, since his height was 161 cms. instead of 165 cms. prescribed under the amended Recruitment and Promotion Rules, notified on 01.05.2009. 2. Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered for the post of Fireman as per the old Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1986. He then argued that he was to be appointed on batch-wise basis. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner’s height is 161 cms. instead of 165 cms. and 22 candidates out of 24 have already been appointed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has not been found suitable pursuant to the interview held on 14.02.20 12. According to the old Rules, there was no provision for batch-wise recruitment. This has been incorporated for the first time in the Rules notified on 28.09.2007. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has not been found suitable pursuant to the interview held on 14.02.20 12. According to the old Rules, there was no provision for batch-wise recruitment. This has been incorporated for the first time in the Rules notified on 28.09.2007. It is true that at the time when these Rules were framed, the minimum height required was 155 cms. However, as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 0 1.05.2009, the minimum height has been increased to 165 cms. The height of the petitioner is 161 cms. Hence, he was not eligible to be considered for appointment as Fireman. The rigours of the Rules would remain the same for batch-wise or direct recruitment. 6. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner that his case was required to be considered as per the old Rules. 7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in latest judgment in Deepak Agarwal and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 6 SCC 725 have held that the rules which are prevalent at time when the consideration took place for promotion, would be applicable. Their Lordships have further held that the 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 and 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. Their Lordships have held as under: “18. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants were entitled to be considered for promotion on the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner under the 1983 Rules, on the vacancies, which occurred prior to the amendment in the 1983 Rules on 17th May, 1999. 19. Under the unamended 1983 Rules, the petitioners would be eligible to be considered for promotion by virtue of Rule 5(2). By virtue of the Note to Rule 8, a combined eligibility list has to be prepared by arranging the names of Assistant Excise Commissioner and Technical Officers in order of seniority as determined by the date of their substantive appointment. Under the unamended 1983 Rules, the petitioners would be eligible to be considered for promotion by virtue of Rule 5(2). By virtue of the Note to Rule 8, a combined eligibility list has to be prepared by arranging the names of Assistant Excise Commissioner and Technical Officers in order of seniority as determined by the date of their substantive appointment. The appellants were, therefore, clearly in the feeder cadre of the post for promotion to the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner. Rule 7 provides that the Appointing Authority shall determine the vacancies to be filled during the course of the year and the number of vacancies. There is no statutory duty cast upon the State to complete the selection process within a prescribed period. Nor is there a mandate to fill up the posts within a particular time. Rather the proviso to Rule 2 enables the State to leave a particular post unfilled. 20. However, it is a matter of record that the promotions under the 1983 Rules were to be made on the basis of the criteria’s laid down in the Uttar Pradesh Government Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994. Rule 4 of these Rules provided that: “Recruitments by promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of the unfit.” Consequently, the appellants would have been eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority, as determined under the Note to Rule 8. The aforesaid right for consideration to be promoted on the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner has been taken away by the Uttar Pradesh Excise Group ‘A’ Service (5th amendment) Rules, 1999. 22. It is also a matter of record that 12 vacancies existed on the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99. Out of these 12 vacancies, 10 had arisen prior to 1 7th May, 1999 and two vacancies arose on 30th June, 1999. By virtue of the amendment in sub-rule 3 of Rule 5, the appellants have been deprived of the right to be considered for promotion on the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner. Respondents have been promoted by the impugned order dated 26th May, 1999 under the amended Rules. 23. Could the right of the appellants, to be considered under the unamended 1983 Rules be taken away? The promotions of the 12 vacancies have been made on 26th May, 1999 under the amended Rules. Respondents have been promoted by the impugned order dated 26th May, 1999 under the amended Rules. 23. Could the right of the appellants, to be considered under the unamended 1983 Rules be taken away? The promotions of the 12 vacancies have been made on 26th May, 1999 under the amended Rules. The High Court rejected the submissions of the appellants that the controversy herein is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Y. V. Rangaiah (Supra). The High Court has relied on the judgment of this Court in Dr. K. Ramulu (supra). 24. We are of the considered opinion that the judgment in Y. V. Rangaiah’s case (supra) would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The aforesaid judgment was rendered on the interpretation of Rule 4(a)(1)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules, 1976. The aforesaid Rule provided for preparation of a panel for the eligible candidates every year in the month of September. This was a statutory duty cast upon the State. The exercise was required to be conducted each year. Thereafter, only promotion orders were to be issued. However, no panel had been prepared for the year 1976. Subsequently, the rule was amended, which rendered the petitioners therein ineligible to be considered for promotion. In these circumstances, it was observed by this Court that the amendment would not be applicable to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the amendment. The vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment rules would be governed by the old rules and not the amended rules. 25. In the present case, there is no statutory duty cast upon the respondents to either prepare a year-wise panel of the eligible candidates or 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 how many posts are to be filled under Rule 7 cannot be equated with not issuing promotion orders to 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. 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 Dhawan that the vacancies, which had arisen before 17th May, 1999 had to be filled under the unamended 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’s case (supra) 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 can not be accepted that any accrued or vested right of the appellants have been taken away by the amendment. 32. Similarly, this view has been reiterated by this Court in the cases of State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav & Ors. (supra), H.S. Grewal Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Chanan Ram & Anr. (supra). This Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission’s case (supra) has held that it is the rules which are prevalent at the time when the consideration took place for promotion, which would be applicable. In Para 17, it has been held as follows: “In the case of State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, Ji, had to consider the question whether the State could change a qualification for the recruitment during the process of recruitment which had not resulted into any final decision in favour of any candidate. In paragraph 5 of the Report in this connection it was observed that it is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualification for recruitment. In paragraph 5 of the Report in this connection it was observed that it is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualification for recruitment. In the case before the Court pursuant to the amended Rules, the Government had withdrawn the earlier notification and wanted to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It was held that this was not the case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules had only prospective operation. The Government was entitled to conduct election in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State was entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules. In the case of J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr Narinder Mohan another Division Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and N.P. Singh, Ji considered the question of interception of recruitment process earlier undertaken by the recruiting agency. In this connection it was observed that the process of selection against existing and anticipated vacancies does not create any right to be appointed to the post which can be enforced by a mandamus. It has to be recalled that in fairness learned Senior Counsel, Shri Ganpule for the respondent-writ petitioner, stated that it is not his case that the writ petitioner should be appointed to the advertised post. All that he claimed was his right to be considered for recruitment to the advertised post as per the earlier advertisement dated 5-11-1993 Annexure P-1 and nothing more. In our view, the aforesaid limited contention also, on the facts of the present case, cannot be of any assistance to the writ petitioner as the earlier selection process itself had become infructuous and otiose on the abolition of the advertised posts, as we have seen earlier. The second point, therefore, will have to be answered in the negative in favour of the appellants and against the respondent-writ petitioner.” 8. Since the petitioner was required to possess height of 165 cms., there is no illegality in the action of the respondents, whereby the petitioner has not been found eligible. The second point, therefore, will have to be answered in the negative in favour of the appellants and against the respondent-writ petitioner.” 8. Since the petitioner was required to possess height of 165 cms., there is no illegality in the action of the respondents, whereby the petitioner has not been found eligible. Moreover, the advertisement has been issued after the amendment has been carried out in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.