JUDGMENT Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. At the very outset, it is considered appropriate to extract in verbatim the prayers made in all these writ petitions. In W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2008, filed by the petitioner Smti. Bibha Neog, the prayers are as follows: In the premises set forth above it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that Yours Lordships could be graciously pleased to admit this petition, call for the records to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order(s)/direction(s) shall not be issued to the respondents to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner from time to time praying for her due promotion to the post of 'Assistant Manager' ARTFED within a specific time frame by taking effective steps as prayed for, to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the post of 'Assistant Manager' ARTFED which is lying vacant by giving due weightage of her long years of experience in the Exhibition and Publicity Section of the federation, seniority, her educational qualification and her good service record by giving all the promotional benefits like that of other employees holding the post of 'Assistant Manager' ARTFED as prayed for, to struck down the impugned executive action of the official respondents blocking the petitioner's due promotion to the said post by appointing fresh person or persons from other branches of ARTFED as incharge of Assistant Manager or Assistant Manager on Ad-hoc basis, but holding the same as illegal and ultra-vires of the constitution of India for the reasons stated supra as prayed for and as further suitable direction to the respondent authorities not to appoint any fresh personnel or persons from other branches of 'ARTFED' to the post of 'Assistant Manager', Head Office, ARTFED till the final disposal of the instant writ proceedings, as prayed for to pay proper salary attached to the post of senior Asstt. As prayed for. And Upon perusal of the records and hearing both the parties make the Rule absolute and or pass such further order(s) direction(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. As prayed for. And Upon perusal of the records and hearing both the parties make the Rule absolute and or pass such further order(s) direction(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. And Pending final disposal of the Rule, a suitable direction may kindly be given to the respondent authorities not to appoint any fresh personnel or persons from other branches of 'ARTFED' to the post of 'Assistant Manager' Head office ARTFED which is lying vacant as prayed for, as interim relief. W.P. (C) No. 3402 of 2010 was filed by Smti. Bibha Neog with the following prayers: It is therefore prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue rule calling upon the respondents why the order Ref No. A/E/329/2005/20/671-718 dated 5.6.2010 issued by the Managing Director ARTFED promoting the private respondents to the posts of Assistant Manager and the petitioner to the post of Sr. Branch Manager and continuation of the respondent No. 8 as the Assistant Manager (Publicity) on ad-hoc basis shall not be quashed and as to why the respondent authorities shall not be directed to promote to the posts of Assistant Manager of the ARTFED as per selection of year wise basis from the date when the posts of Assistant Manager were available in ARTFED for the private respondents and the petitioner and further as to why the respondent authorities shall not be directed to forbear from giving effect to the said impugned order dated 5.6.2010 so far as promotion to the posts of Assistant Manager, ARTFED and after such cause or causes that may be shown, hearing the parties and perusing the records further be pleased do make the rule absolute and/or pass such further or other orders as your Lordships may seem fit and proper. AND It is further prayed that pending disposal of the rule, the impugned order dated 5.6.2010 issued by the Managing Director, ARTFED promoting the private respondents as well as the petitioner may be stayed. 2. W.P. (C). No. 4157 of 2008, was filed by the petitioner Smti. AND It is further prayed that pending disposal of the rule, the impugned order dated 5.6.2010 issued by the Managing Director, ARTFED promoting the private respondents as well as the petitioner may be stayed. 2. W.P. (C). No. 4157 of 2008, was filed by the petitioner Smti. Dalimi Hazarika with the following prayers: In the premises set forth above it is therefore most respectfully prayed that Yours Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of the case, issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ order(s)/direction(s) shall not be issued to the respondents to fix the proper pay scale of the petitioner in the post of Senior Assistant-cum-Junior Accountant by implementing the official order dated 14.07.99 (Annexure-D series), whereby the pay scale of Senior Assistant' was enhanced from Rs.1285-3075 to Rs.1475-3825/- per month, which the petitioner is legally entitled to as per the order dated 14.7.99, to take all the effective measures by the respondents to enhance the scale of pay of the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant-cum-Junior Accountant by implementing the aforesaid order (Annexure-D series) within a specific time from as prayed for, to consider the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant manager (Accounts) or in any other sections of ARTFED where the post are lying vacant in the aforesaid cadre/post by giving due weightage of her long years of experience in the accounts section of ARTFED, seniority, educational qualification and her good service records by giving all the promotional benefits like that of other employees holding the post of Assistant Manager in ARTFED as prayed for, to struck down the impugned executive action of the official respondents blocking the petitioner's due promotion to the said post by appointing fresh person or persons from other branches of ARTFED as in-charge Assistant manager or Assistant manager on ad-hoc basis, by holding the same as illegal and ultra-vires of the constitution of India for the reasons stated supra as prayed for and a further suitable direction to the respondent authorities not to appoint any fresh personnel or persons from other branches of ARTFED to the post of Assistant Manager, Head Office ARTFED till the final disposal of the instant writ proceeding, as prayed for. And Upon perusal of the records and hearing both the parties make the Rule absolute and or pass such further order(s) direction(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. And Pending final disposal of the Rule, a suitable direction may kindly be given to the respondent authorities to take effective steps within a specific time frame to fix the proper pay scale of the petitioner in the post of Senior Assistant-cum-Junior Accountant by enhancing the pay scale of the petitioner, thereby implementing the official order dated 14.7.99 (Annexure-D series) in its true spirit as prayed for and a suitable direction may also kindly be given to the respondent authorities to restrain themselves from appointing or engaging any fresh personnel or person from other branches of ARTFED to the post of Assistant Manager, Head Office ARTFED which is lying vacant as prayed for, as an interim measure. 3. W.P. (C). No. 3409 of 2010, was filed by the petitioner Smti. Dalimi Hazarika with the following prayers: It is therefore prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the order Ref No. A/E/329/2005/20/671-718 dated 5.6.2010 issued by the Managing Director, ARTFED promoting the private respondents to the posts of Assistant Manager and the petitioner to the post of Sr. Branch Manager and continuation of the respondent No. 8 as the Assistant Manager (Publicity) on ad-hoc basis shall not be quashed and as to why the respondent authorities shall not be directed to promote to the posts of Assistant Manager of the ARTFED as per selection of yearwise basis from the date when the posts of Assistant Manager were available in ARTFED for the private respondents and the petitioner and further as to why the respondent authorities shall not be directed to forbear from giving effect to the said impugned order dated 5.6.2010 so far as promotion to the posts of Assistant Manager, ARTFED and after such cause or causes that may be shown, hearing the parties and perusing the records further be pleased to make the rule absolute and/or pass such further or other orders as your Lordships may seem fit and proper. AND It is further prayed that pending disposal of the rule, the impugned order dated 5.6.2010 issued by the Managing Director, ARTFED promoting the private respondents as well as the petitioner as well as the order dated 9.5.2010 releasing the petitioner from the present post may be stayed. 4. As agreed to by the learned senior counsel for the parties, all the four writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Even as factual matrix of the cases filed by Smti. Bibha Neog and Smti. Dalimi Hazarika differs in basic essential facts, such as, dates of appointment, posts held by them etc., yet the foundation and substratum on which the edifice is built for the reliefs prayed is more or less same. There is a common thread weaving the material fabric in all these cases. Smti. Dalimi Hazarika has made additional prayer for enhanced salary on the basis of pleadings. Smti. Bibha Neog has also, without much pleading, prays for the salary attached to the post of Senior Assistant. The learned Senior counsel for the parties also submit that the issues in respect of the writ petitions are common. 5. The facts projected in the cases will be taken note of but for the purpose of reference, unless the context otherwise requires, documents annexed in W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2006 and W.P. (C) No. 3402 of 2010 will be referred to for the sake of convenience. 6. The case projected in W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2008 filed by Smti. Bibha Neog is that the petitioner entered into service of Assam Apex Weavers and Artisans Co-operative Federation Limited (for short, ARTFED) as a Junior Assistant on 22.8.1987. ARTFED is a public sector undertaking which is fully controlled by the Government of Assam. She was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the Exhibition and Publicity Section of ARTFED by an order dated 13.4.1995 and she continued to hold the said post. After she had put in about seven years as Senior Assistant, when a post of Assistant Manager was lying vacant in the Exhibition and Publicity Section at that time, she requested the authorities to appoint her by way of promotion to the said post. However, one Smti Indrani Lahkar was appointed on Ad hoc basis as a fresh candidate. After she had put in about seven years as Senior Assistant, when a post of Assistant Manager was lying vacant in the Exhibition and Publicity Section at that time, she requested the authorities to appoint her by way of promotion to the said post. However, one Smti Indrani Lahkar was appointed on Ad hoc basis as a fresh candidate. Later on, by an order dated 3.4.2002, her service was extended until further orders with effect from 1.2.2002. On 8.4.2002, an order was issued allowing one Raghunath Barman, Senior Branch Manager of ARTFED, Dispur Branch to perform managerial duties for exhibition fairs of ARTFED in addition to his own duties ignoring the claim of the petitioner. In these connections, several representations were submitted. However, these representations did not evoke any response. She is also not getting the salary attached to the post of Senior Assistant. 7. After the post of Superintendent in Personnel (Establishment) Department was re-designated as Assistant Manager (Personnel) by an order dated 25.11.2004, the petitioner submitted a representation on 29.11.2004 to consider her prayer for posting as Assistant Manager (Personnel). However, one Sri Surajit Talukdar, a Senior Branch Manager, was allowed to hold the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel). The petitioner once again made a representation for consideration of her case for promotion. Further representations also followed, but with no response. 8. Salient facts as projected by Smti. Dalimi Hazarika in W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008 is that she joined on 11.4.1979 in ARTFED as Junior Office Assistant. She was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) in the pay scale of Rs.1285- 3075/- by an order 13.4.1995. Prior to her such promotion, she was also allowed to work in the Accounts Section by an order dated 3.8.1989 and after her promotion as Senior Assistant (Accounts), she was allowed to work as Junior Accountant in the same scale of pay of Senior Assistant by an order dated 3.8.1995 and since then she had been working as Senior Assistant-cum-Junior Accountant. By an order dated 14.7.1999, issued by Deputy Director, Handloom and Textiles, pay scale of various posts in ARTFED including the post of Senior Assistant was enhanced and for the post of Senior Assistant, pay scale was increased to Rs.1475-3825/-. By an order dated 14.7.1999, issued by Deputy Director, Handloom and Textiles, pay scale of various posts in ARTFED including the post of Senior Assistant was enhanced and for the post of Senior Assistant, pay scale was increased to Rs.1475-3825/-. However, the benefit of the enhanced pay scale was not given to the petitioner and as such, she had submitted representations dated 29.1.2007, 16.3.2007 and 31.5.2007 for implementation of enhanced pay scale but to no avail. Smti. Sarojinee Devi, who was the earlier incumbent in the post of Senior Accountant, was, however, allowed to enjoy the pay scale of Rs.1475-3825/- which pay scale was inexplicably denied to her when she was promoted as such. A post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) having fallen vacant with the promotion of one Shri Ajay Kumar Das as Manager (Accounts) by an order dated 25.11.2004, she submitted a representation dated 30.11.2004 to the Managing Director for promoting her to the said post of Assistant Manager (Accounts). Earlier, on 13.7.1999, she had represented for promoting her to the post of Senior Accountant. However, her representations did not bear any fruit. When the post of Superintendent in Personnel (Establishment) Department of ARTFED was re-designated as Assistant Manager (Personnel), she had requested for her promotion to the said post. 9. Similar pleadings as in W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2008 are offered by Smti. Dalimi Hazarika in respect of Smti. Indrani Lahkar, Shri Raghu Nath Barman and Shri Surajit Talukdar. 10. In W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2008, the Managing Director of ARTFED filed a preliminary affidavit on 27.11.2008 stating that ARTFED is a Co-operative Society and there is a set of Service Rules, namely, ARTFED Service Rules, 2000 (for short, Rules of 2000) and Rules 12, 13 & 14 thereof deal with promotion. It is stated that by Notification dated 8.9.2008, a Selection Committee for promotion of employees of ARTFED had been constituted and the case of the eligible incumbents including the case of the petitioner was actively considered and the result of the assessment of the Selection Committee was being awaited. Preliminary affidavit was also filed in W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008 stating that letter dated 14.7.1999 is only a recommendation for enhancing the pay scale which was never accepted and approved by ARTFED and as such, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of enhanced pay scale is misconceived. Preliminary affidavit was also filed in W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008 stating that letter dated 14.7.1999 is only a recommendation for enhancing the pay scale which was never accepted and approved by ARTFED and as such, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of enhanced pay scale is misconceived. Referring to the Notification dated 8.9.2008, it is stated that the case of the petitioner for promotion was receiving due consideration and result of the assessment of the Selection Committee was being awaited. In both the preliminary affidavits, the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 prayed for dismissal of the writ petition(s) as premature. 11. W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2008 and W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008 were admitted on 27.2.2009 with a direction to the respondent authorities to finalise the process of selection for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager and to place the result thereof before the Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition. 12. W.P. (C) No. 3402 of 2010 and W.P. (C) No. 3409 of 2010 came to be filed by Smti. Bibha Neog and Smti. Dalimi Hazarika, respectively, as in pursuance of Resolution No. 7(1) of the meeting of the Board of Directors of ARTFED held on 14.5.2010, following the recommendation of the Selection Committee, an order dated 5.6.2010 was issued by the Managing Director of ARTFED promoting/regularising some employees. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3402 of 2010 was also promoted as Senior Branch Manager (Establishment Section), instead of to the post of Assistant Manager, as claimed by her. Smti. Dalimi Hazarika was promoted as Senior Branch Manager (Accounts) by the order dated 5.6.2010 and not to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts), as claimed by her. Being aggrieved, they filed their respective writ petition(s). 13. An affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5, both in W.P. (C) No. 3402 of 2010 and in W.P. (C) No. 3409 of 2010 by one Sri Mukul Chandra Deka, General Manager, ARTFED. In the said affidavit(s), it is stated that subsequent to the order of this court dated 27.2.2009, some new developments had taken place in the process of departmental promotion. The Selection Committee constituted vide Notification dated 8.9.2008, had submitted one report in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 23.6.2009. The report was not approved by the Board of Directors. The Selection Committee constituted vide Notification dated 8.9.2008, had submitted one report in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 23.6.2009. The report was not approved by the Board of Directors. It was felt that selections made were not proper and correct and they decided to make amendment of the existing Service Rules. The Selection Committee constituted vide Notification dated 8.9.2008 was dissolved and promotion of the employees were kept in abeyance till new Service Rules were framed. Accordingly, ARTFED Service Rules, 2010, (for short, Rules of 2010) was brought into operation. A new Selection Committee was constituted on 15.5.2010 which considered the cases of eligible incumbents and thereafter, order dated 5.6.2010 was issued. Smti Bibha Neog was promoted as Senior Branch Manager (Establishment), which is the next higher promotional post from the cadre of Senior Assistant, which post she was holding. Similarly, Smti. Dalimi Hazarika was promoted as Senior Branch Manager (Accounts), which is the next higher post to the post which Smti. Dalimi Hazarika was holding. It is stated that the Smti. Bibha Neog was considered for the post of Branch Manager only under Rules of 2000 as there was no scope under the Rules of 2000 for her promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. Under the Rules of 2000, even for the post of Branch Manager, Smti. Bibha Neog did not have the requisite qualification but her name was recommended subject to condonation of requisite qualification of Mass Communication or Public Relation. In respect of Smti. Dalimi Hazarika, it is stated that her case was earlier considered under the Rules of 2000 for the post of Internal Auditor and she was not eligible to be considered for the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) as the post of Accountant was the feeder cadre for the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts). In both the affidavits, it is stated that at no point of time it was contended by ARTFED that the cases of the petitioner(s) were considered for the post of Assistant Manager but that their cases were considered for promotion to the next higher post as per the Rules in force. 14. In both the affidavits, it is stated that at no point of time it was contended by ARTFED that the cases of the petitioner(s) were considered for the post of Assistant Manager but that their cases were considered for promotion to the next higher post as per the Rules in force. 14. Smti Indrani Lahkar, against whose ad hoc appointment as Assistant Manager (Publicity), the petitioners had made grievances, is now regularised as Branch Manager (Publicity) vide order dated 27.8.2010, a post lower than the post of Senior Branch Manager to which the petitioners were promoted. Raghu Nath Barman was working as Senior Branch Manager from 13.5.1995, was not promoted as contended by the petitioner(s) but was entrusted with additional managerial duties, and such additional entrustment was not accompanied by any financial benefits. The petitioner(s) are not eligible to claim promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel), to which post also they staked claim after the post of Superintendent was re-designated as Assistant Manager (Personnel). 15. An additional affidavit was filed by ARTFED on 18.6.2010 in W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2008 bringing on record the order dated 5.6.2010 and indicating the selection process undertaken under the Rules of 2010 and stating that the post of Assistant Manager (Publicity) had not been filled up as there was no fit person to hold that post. An additional affidavit was also filed by the petitioner against the said additional affidavit. Similar exchange of affidavits had taken place in W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008. 16. Mr. C. Baruah, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that when this court had passed an order on 27.2.2009 directing finalisation of process for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager and had directed that the result thereof be placed before the Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition, there has to be a consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager, which is apparently not done by ARTFED. Consideration of the case of the petitioner(s) after filing W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2008 and W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008 in terms of Rules of 2010 is wholly arbitrary and that the petitioners have been denied their rightful promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. Consideration of the case of the petitioner(s) after filing W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2008 and W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008 in terms of Rules of 2010 is wholly arbitrary and that the petitioners have been denied their rightful promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners have been discriminated and many promotions had been effected by ARTFED on pick and choose basis denying their legitimate claim. The learned senior counsel submits that when the vacancy for the post of Assistant Manager was available before the Rules of 2010 came into force, such vacancy has to be filled up on the basis of the earlier Rules of 2000 and not on the basis of the Rules of 2010. He has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to pay scale of Rs.1475-3825/- as Senior Assistant in terms of recommendations dated 15.7.1999 and 14.7.1999. He further submits that letter dated 14.7.1999 was issued in view of the resolution of the Board of Directors and the Deputy Director, Handloom and Textiles, on whose authority the order was issued, was functioning as Secretary of ARTFED and therefore, same is binding. However, they were denied the said pay scale. That apart, one S. Devi, who held the post of Senior Assistant was enjoying pay scale of Rs.1475-3825/-. However, when the petitioners were promoted to the said post as Senior Assistant, most arbitrarily, they were offered pay scale of Rs.1285-3075/- and as such, a suitable direction may be issued by this court to make payment of salary to the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.1475-3825/-. He relies on the following decisions in support of his case- (i) B.L. Gupta and Anr. v. M.C.D., reported in (1998) 9 SCC 223 , (ii) Y.V. Rangaiah and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors., reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 , (iii) Dr. K. Ramulu and Anr. v. Dr. S. Surya Prakash Rao and Ors., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 59 and (iv) S. Prafullo Singh and Anr. v. State of Manipur and Ors., reported in 2010 (2) GLT 794. 17. Mr. S N Sarma, learned senior counsel for ARTFED submits that under the Rules of 2000, the petitioners did not have the requisite qualification for being promoted as Assistant Manager. v. State of Manipur and Ors., reported in 2010 (2) GLT 794. 17. Mr. S N Sarma, learned senior counsel for ARTFED submits that under the Rules of 2000, the petitioners did not have the requisite qualification for being promoted as Assistant Manager. It is submitted by him that under the Rules of 2000, the organizational set up had some deficiency and furthermore, there were hardly a few persons who could have been considered for promotion to the next higher post as most of the employees did not have the requisite qualification of the promotional posts prescribed under the Rules of 2000. It was in this context that the Board of Directors had considered that organizational structure had to be revamped and eligibility qualification lowered so as to facilitate promotion of existing employees. Learned senior counsel submits that Smti. Bibha Neog did not have the qualification prescribed for either the post of Assistant Manager, Exhibition or the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel). Even for the post of Branch Manager, (Exhibition & Publicity), she did not have requisite qualification under the Rules of 2000. Smti. Dalimi Hazarika also did not have the qualification for the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts), besides being not in the feeder cadre. She also did not have the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel). It is submitted by him that promotion has to be given in accordance with Rules and an employee does not have any inherent and vested right of promotion but only has a right for consideration of promotion in accordance with the Rules in force. 18. The learned senior counsel submits that under the Rules of 2000, the petitioners were not at all entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager and such prayer of the writ petitioners is absolutely misconceived. It is submitted by him that a Senior Assistant and Junior Accountant with 10 years of service is now made eligible to be promoted as Senior Branch Manager under the Rules of 2010. Learned senior counsel submits that there is no infirmity in the order dated 5.6.2010. It is submitted by him that a Senior Assistant and Junior Accountant with 10 years of service is now made eligible to be promoted as Senior Branch Manager under the Rules of 2010. Learned senior counsel submits that there is no infirmity in the order dated 5.6.2010. With regard to the claim for enhanced pay scale, learned senior counsel submits that the Board of Directors of ARTFED, which is the competent authority, had not approved the recommendation made by the Deputy Director, Handloom and Textiles and as such, no direction is called for to grant enhanced pay scale. Furthermore, it is submitted by learned senior counsel that when the pay scale of Rs.1475-3825/- was not given to Smti. Dalimi Hazarika, she had filed a representation demanding the same and thereafter, she was allowed to work as Junior Accountant in the scale of pay as mentioned in the order dated 13.4.1995. To that extent, there is suppression of material facts, learned senior counsel submits. 19. He has submitted that in view of the consideration of the case of the petitioners for promotion, W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2008 and W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008 have become infructuous. The learned senior counsel further submits that there is no merit in the other writ petitions and the same are also liable to be dismissed. He also relies on the decision in (i) Dr. K. Ramulu (supra) and in the case of (ii) State of Punjab and Ors. v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal and Ors., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 402. 20. I have heard the learned counsel for appearing parties and have perused the materials available on record. I have also perused the records made available by Mr. Sarma. There is no representation on behalf of the private respondents. 21. Bearing in mind the way in which prayers are formulated by the petitioners, it will be necessary to find out the essence of the reliefs prayed for. In the writ petitions filed in the year 2008, it appears that the petitioners feel that they have been arbitrarily deprived of their promotion to the post of Assistant Manager as promotion was given to many others without adherence to the qualifications. Accordingly, they have prayed for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. Additionally, while Smti. Dalimi Hazarika has sought for direction for grant of enhanced pay scale, Smti. Bibha Neog prays for proper salary. Accordingly, they have prayed for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. Additionally, while Smti. Dalimi Hazarika has sought for direction for grant of enhanced pay scale, Smti. Bibha Neog prays for proper salary. In the context of the cases, it can be taken that she is also praying for enhanced pay scale. In the writ petitions filed in the year 2010, it appears that the petitioners primarily question their promotion to the posts of Senior Branch Manager by the order dated 5.6.2010 and thus, pray for a direction for their promotion to the post of Assistant Manager from the dates when such posts were available. Promotion of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as Assistant Manager (Marketing) and Assistant Manager (Personnel), respectively, by the said order is also questioned. Quashing of continuation of respondent No. 8 as Assistant Manager (Publicity) is also prayed for. 22. In Y.V. Rangaiah (supra), the Apex Court had held that vacancy in the promotional post occurring prior to amendment of the Rules has to be filled up in accordance with the un-amended Rules. In that case, under the extant Rules, a list of approved candidates had to be drawn as on September 1, 1976 for making appointment to the Grade of Sub-Registrar by transfer. It was not so done and after considerable delay, it was drawn up in the year 1977 when an amendment to the Rules had been incorporated, whereby the original Rule providing for consideration of appointment of Lower Division Clerks as Sub-Registrar, Grade-II was done away with, thereby adversely affecting the interest of Lower Division Clerks who would have got promotion, had the list of approved candidates been prepared as enjoined by the Rules. It is in this context, the Apex Court held that the vacancy which occurred prior to the amended Rules, would be guided by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. 23. In B.L. Gupta (supra), relying upon, amongst others, Y.V. Rangaiah (supra), the Apex Court had reiterated that vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. 24. In K. Ramulu (supra), on which both Mr. Baruah and Mr. 23. In B.L. Gupta (supra), relying upon, amongst others, Y.V. Rangaiah (supra), the Apex Court had reiterated that vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. 24. In K. Ramulu (supra), on which both Mr. Baruah and Mr. Sarma have placed reliance in support of their respective argument, the question that had fallen for consideration was whether a person eligible under the un-amended Rules, in view of a conscious decision taken by the Government not to fill in vacancy till the amendment of the existing Rules, he was entitled to be considered for promotion in pre-amendment vacancies in accordance with un-amended Rules. The Apex Court had held no vested right accrues for being considered for promotion, in accordance with the repealed Rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government which was found justified on the materials placed before the court. 25. In S. Prafullo Singh (supra), the petitioners were qualified under the existing recruitment rules and there were promotional vacancies. Subsequently, new rules were framed which reduced promotional prospects. In absence of any conscious decision of the State not to fill up vacancies by following the old recruitment rules, this court directed filling up the vacancies in terms of the recruitment rule which was holding the field when the vacancies had arisen. 26. In Arun Kumar Aggarwal (supra), vacancies were available when the existing Rules of 1947 were applicable, but a conscious decision was taken to postpone filling up of vacancies till the new Rules of 2004 became effective with effect from 9.7.2004 on the rationale that the old Rules did not have any quota earmarked for promotion of diploma-holders while the new Rules had such quota. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the Apex Court had, while upholding decision of the Government to fill up the vacancies under the Rules of 2004, rejected the contention that as vacancies arose during the time when the old Rules were in force, they must be filled up by applying "relaxation clause" of the old Rules. 27. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the Apex Court had, while upholding decision of the Government to fill up the vacancies under the Rules of 2004, rejected the contention that as vacancies arose during the time when the old Rules were in force, they must be filled up by applying "relaxation clause" of the old Rules. 27. From the tenor of pleadings of the writ petitioners, and the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, there is no mistaking of the fact that the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2008 seeks promotion to the post of Assistant Manager based on her experience in Exhibition and Publicity Section and the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008 seeks promotion to the post of Assistant Manager based on her experience in Accounts Section. 28. The minutes of the Selection Committee for promotion of the Employees show that Selection Committee held its sittings on various dates from September, 2008 to April, 2009. Before going to the promotion process in detail, the Committee had observed that the existing Service Rules of 2000 of ARTFED needed modification according to the qualification, experience etc. of the existing staff of ARTFED. It was observed that in most of the promotional cases, requirement of qualification was shown higher than that of existing qualification of most of the employees. It was also observed that keeping in view the qualification prescribed in the service Rule for giving promotion, Selection Committee had decided to consider the promotion of those employees only who were in possession of minimum qualification of pass in Pre-University or HSSLC. In respect of posts of Branch Manager (Exhibition) and Internal Auditor, it was noted as under: Branch Manager (Exhibition): Vacancy -1 The qualification required for promotion to the post of Branch Manager (Exhibition) is Graduate in any discipline having Degree or Diploma in Public Relation or Mass Communication. Smti. Bibha Neog, Senior Assistant (Exhibition) is working in the Exhibition Section. Her qualification is Master Degree in Arts. The Committee recommended her name for the post of Branch Manager (Exhibition) provided the BOD condone the qualifications of Mass Communication or Public Relation, considering her long experience in the Exhibition Section. Internal Auditor: Vacancy-1 The qualification and experience required for the promotion to the above post is Degree in Commerce with practical experience for 5 years. Smti. Dalimi Deka Hazarika, Sr. Asstt. Internal Auditor: Vacancy-1 The qualification and experience required for the promotion to the above post is Degree in Commerce with practical experience for 5 years. Smti. Dalimi Deka Hazarika, Sr. Asstt. now looking after the duties of Jr. Accountant. Though her qualification is graduation in Arts, the Committee recommended her name for promotion to the post of Internal Auditor considering her long experience in Accounts and Audits Section. 29. The meeting of the Board of Directors dated 23.6.2009 under Resolution No. 5 discussed the report submitted by the Selection Committee and as recommended, decided to amend the Rules and resolved to take up the matter of promotion only after such amendment. The Managing Director was also entrusted to take necessary steps with regard to the letter issued by Department of Handloom & Textiles indicating necessity of obtaining approval of Administrative Department as well as Finance Department in matters of appointment, promotion and payment of salary in enhanced scale. 30. Under the Rules of 2000, post of Assistant Manager is available under the Finance and Accounts Department, Personnel (establishment) Department, Exhibition and Publicity Department. Post of Assistant Manager in all these departments is in Class-II Service. The qualification prescribed for Assistant Manager in Finance and Accounts Department is B.Com with CA/ICWA/B.Com with 10 years experience. Qualification prescribed for Assistant Manager in Exhibition and Publicity Department is Graduate in any discipline with degree/diploma in Public Relation or Mass Communication. Branch Manager or any other equivalent post is the feeder post for the post of Assistant Manager in Exhibition and Publicity Department. Qualification prescribed for the re-designated post of Superintendent as Assistant Manager in Personnel (Establishment Department) is Graduate in any discipline having experience in Personnel Management. 31. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have not disclosed their educational qualifications. It has not also been argued that they fulfill the qualification prescribed for Assistant Manager in any of the aforesaid departments. If under the extant Rules, the petitioners do not have the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Manager, it is not conceivable how the petitioners can claim and assert that they must be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager and that they had been deprived of legitimate promotion to the said post. If under the extant Rules, the petitioners do not have the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Manager, it is not conceivable how the petitioners can claim and assert that they must be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager and that they had been deprived of legitimate promotion to the said post. The submission that their chances of promotion became bleak in view of induction of respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 also has no substance as the petitioners could not have been promoted to the post of Assistant Manager under the Rules of 2000 because of lack of essential qualification. Assuming someone had been given undue benefit de hors the Rules, then also it cannot be countenanced that because of wrong committed in another case, the petitioners must also be given the same benefit. At any rate, as on today, Smti. Indrani Lahkar is holding a post lower than the petitioners. No materials have been placed to justify setting aside of promotion of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who were admittedly occupying higher posts than the writ petitioners, to the post of Assistant Manager by the order dated 5.6.2010. There is no legal basis for the claim made by the writ petitioners. It is no body's case that they were eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager under the Rules of 2000 and under the Rules of 2010, their promotional avenue to the post of Assistant Manager has been scuttled to their detriment and prejudice. Although the vacancy had arisen when the Rules of 2000 was in force, admittedly, the petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility criteria and therefore, there was no question of their suffering any prejudice. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3826 of 2008 did not even fulfill the eligibility criteria for promotion to the existing higher post of Branch Manager (Exhibition). Same is the case with the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008. She was not eligible for the next existing higher post of Internal Auditor as she did not have the degree in commerce. Such lack of qualification was not an isolated case as argued by the learned senior counsel for ARTFED. Apparently, employees did not have specialized qualifications although the Rules of 2000 had prescribed such qualifications in the posts in Class-I and Class-II. Such lack of qualification was not an isolated case as argued by the learned senior counsel for ARTFED. Apparently, employees did not have specialized qualifications although the Rules of 2000 had prescribed such qualifications in the posts in Class-I and Class-II. Under the Rules of 2010, even HSSLC passed employees are made eligible up to the post of Assistant Manager. Although an exercise was undertaken for promotion under the existing Rules, in view of ground realities, as recommended by the Selection Committee, the Board of Directors had taken a decision to amend the Rules, not to deprive the existing employees from getting promotion but to facilitate their promotion in accordance with law. No prejudice is caused to the writ petitioners, who are now promoted to the post of Senior Branch Manager in terms of the Rules of 2010. In the perspective and background of the aforesaid facts, the order dated 27.2.2009, which was passed on the basis of the prayer made by the petitioners claiming their promotion to the post of Assistant Manager, does not help the cause of the petitioners in any manner. The judgments in the cases of B.L. Gupta (supra), Y.V. Rangaiah (supra) and Prafullo Singh (supra), according to the considered opinion of the court, will not be attracted in the facts of these cases and the ratio laid down in the cases of Dr. K. Ramulu (supra) and Arun Kumar Aggarwal (supra) will be applicable in view of decision of the Board of Directors to defer promotion till amendment of the existing Rules, due to compelling necessity, is made. 32. Smti. Dalimi Hazarika, Smti. Bibha Neog and another person were allowed to officiate as Senior Assistant by an order dated 13.4.1995 in the pay scale of Rs.1285-3075/- p.m. plus other allowances, as admissible. Smti. Dalimi Hazarika submitted a representation praying for pay scale of Rs.1475-3825/- on the basis of pay scale of Senior Assistant of the Government of Assam. Thereafter, by an order dated 3.6.1995, she was allowed to work as Junior Accountant in the scale of pay as mentioned in order dated 13.4.1995. The note of the Selection Committee shows her designation as Senior Assistant. It was also noted therein that she was allowed to work as Junior Accountant. Because of not mentioning of the said order in the writ petition, it is not possible to accept the argument of Mr. The note of the Selection Committee shows her designation as Senior Assistant. It was also noted therein that she was allowed to work as Junior Accountant. Because of not mentioning of the said order in the writ petition, it is not possible to accept the argument of Mr. Sarma that there is suppression of material fact. 33. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that letters dated 14.7.1999 and 15.7.1999, on which much reliance has been placed by Mr. Baruah, authorise enhanced scale of pay. The report dated 15.7.1999 is only a recommendation and it itself says that the pay scale mentioned therein may be considered. It is the categorical stand of the respondents that the enhanced pay scale has not been approved and accepted by the Board. In all probability there is typing error in Annexure-D(1) of W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008 as the said letter shows the date 14.7.1999 in the top while at the bottom of the letter, date is shown as 15.9.1999. 15.9.1999 appears to be the correct date as the report dated 15.7.1999, which is annexed as Annexure-D(2) of W.P. (C) No. 4157 of 2008, is enclosed thereto. Merely because a report is submitted pursuant to Resolution of the Board of Directors, it cannot be contended that the same is binding on all concerned. The report has to be approved and accepted by the Board of Directors and also possibly by the Administrative Department of ARTFED as well as by the Finance Department of the Government of Assam, as the Resolution No. 5 of the meeting of the Board of Directors dated 23.6.2009 seems to suggest. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly, the same are dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.