Judgment : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard Shri Mardikar, Advocate for petitioners and Mrs. Bharati Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents. We have also perused orders passed by this Court from time to time, including the order dated 06.05.2011 and 12.10.2011. 2. Facts show that members of petitioner association working as Workshop Attendant earlier with Director of Vocation and Training had no channel of promotion. In a meeting conducted on 23.12.1993, it was decided to reserve 25% posts in the cadre of Instructor and to promote Workshop Attendant against those posts. This is also recognized in order dated 24.11.1995 issued by Director of Vocation and Training. Some members of petitioner association were accordingly promoted on purely temporary basis. 3. It appears that the department was initially bifurcated & thereafter and petitioners came under Director of Vocational. Their counterparts who continued working under the Director of Training, had and still have a promotional channel. However, in recruitment rules & service conditions of Workshop Attendant under Director of Vocation, there is no such channel and it is only because of above mentioned meeting & communication dated 24.11.1995 the members of petitioner association received the benefit of promotion. However, the Directorate on 13.01.2003, held that since these promotions granted without amending recruitment rules unsustainable. It appears that the modified rules did not receive approval from State Government and hence on 13.01.2003 the Director refused to regularize the promotions already granted. Thereafter reversion orders came to be issued. Petitioner association then approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.52/2003 and in that Original Application, interim relief was granted. But ultimately the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal found that promotions granted were contrary to recruitment rules, and hence dismissed Original Application. Thereafter present petition has been filed. In this writ petition interim order has been passed for the first time on 21.07.2003. While issuing Rule, this Court quoted that an advertisement for direct recruitment Instructor was published on 19.07.2003 and hence members of petitioner association, then occupying the post by promotion, were permitted to continue till they were replaced. This order has been modified when it was pointed out to Court that there was no advertisement dated 19.07.2003. The members of petitioner association were permitted to continue till they were replaced by candidates to be selected in future and they were also permit to participate in selection process in response to such advertisement. This order has been modified when it was pointed out to Court that there was no advertisement dated 19.07.2003. The members of petitioner association were permitted to continue till they were replaced by candidates to be selected in future and they were also permit to participate in selection process in response to such advertisement. On 06.05.2011 petitioners made a grievance in this connection and at that time this Court noted that because of 11 new recruits, some members of petitioner association were reverted. It also noted that it was appropriate to dispose of petition finally, as Government then agreed that the other members would not be reverted in the meanwhile. On 12.10.2011 this Court granted adjournment to Additional Government Pleader to find out time required for framing recruitment rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 4. In this background, Advocate Shri Mardikar argues that total absence of channel for promotion to the members of petitioner association is injustice to them and Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has not considered this aspect. According to him, when counterparts of petitioner who work under Director of Training, are entitled to promotion, members of petitioner need to be extended similar opportunity. He has further pointed out that as members of petitioners association are working under Director of Vocation, impugned order of reversion passed by Director of Training is not binding and cannot be used against them. As the respondents have till date not framed any rules, hence the petition deserves to be allowed and the decision reached in meeting conducted on 20.12.1993 and policy as contained in communication dated 24.11.1995 must be held to be in force and should be implemented. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader contends that Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has considered all relevant aspects and thereafter has found that promotions granted were de hors the recruitment rules. In this view of the matter, the promotions have been rightly found not sustainable and the impugned judgment delivered by it therefore, does not warrant any interference. It is further urged that framing of rules under Article 309 is a legislative power and no writ can be issued for that purpose. However, she states that without prejudice to these objections, the State Government is in the process of consideration of appropriate amendment to recruitment rules. 6. It is further urged that framing of rules under Article 309 is a legislative power and no writ can be issued for that purpose. However, she states that without prejudice to these objections, the State Government is in the process of consideration of appropriate amendment to recruitment rules. 6. The fact that existing recruitment rules, which regulate the service condition of petitioners, do not contain in provision for promotion it is not in dispute. It is also clear that the post of Instructor is required to be filled in direct recruitment and hence the resolution as recorded in meeting on 20.12.1993 or the policy decision as noted in communication dated 24.11.1995 which run contrary to it, could not have been implemented. The government, in the interest of members of petitioner association promoted some of its members, but then as the proposed amendment to recruitment rules were not approved by the State Government, a decision to revert such members was taken. As initial promotion itself was contrary to recruitment rules, this decision to revert cannot be viewed as illegal & arbitrary. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has therefore, correctly looked into this aspect. 7. However, fact remains that members of petitioner association do not have any channel of promotion at all. Thus, for their entire length of service they have to continue on one post i.e. Workshop Attendant. This is may not be in accordance with the requirements of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In this situation, in the light of earlier order passed by this Court and as the government has stated that the necessity of amendment is under consideration, we direct respondents to expedite such process and take appropriate decision in this connection, as early as possible and in any case within period of three months from today. The interim protection given by order of this Court on 06.05.2011 shall continue for said period and shall cease to operate automatically. 8. With these observations, we dispose of writ petition. Rule discharged. No costs.