JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-High Court. 2. Petitioners, before this Court, seek quashing of the notification dated 17th August, 2012, whereby Clause 6(i) of the Allahabad High Court Bench Secretaries (Condition of Service) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2005”) has been amended. They also pray for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-High Court to permit the petitioners to appear in the competitive examination to be held for promotion to the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I in the establishment of the High Court, Allahabad. 3. Petitioners, who are 9 in number, were all recruited and appointed as Console Operators-cum-Data Entry Assistants in the year 2001 in the establishment of High Court. They have been confirmed on the said post under the order of the Joint Registrar (Establishment) dated 1st June, 2009 with effect from the dates mentioned in the order against their names. 4. Sri H.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I, the appointment whereof is regulated by the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1976”), was earlier filled after holding selection through competitive examination to be conducted by the appointing authority from the Assistants having not less than 10 years of continuous service in Class-III posts. Preference was to be given to candidates possessing a Law Degree. He submits that under the Rules, 1976, all Class-III employees including the persons, who were holding the post of Console Operators-cum-Data Entry Assistants, like the petitioners were permitted to appear in the competitive examinations to be held for appointment on the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I. Reference is made to paragraph-16 to the present writ petition. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that by notification dated 17th August, 2012, zone of eligibility of the candidates eligible to sit in the competitive examination, has been curtailed by providing that only Review Officer (for short “RO”/Assistant Review Officer (for short “ARO”) having not less then 10 years of continuous service would be entitled to participate in the competitive examination, by making an amendment in Rule-6 (i) of Rules, 2005. The eligibility zone for appearing in the competitive examination for appointment on the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I has been confined to RO/ARO only and as a result whereof persons, like the petitioners stand excluded from being eligible to participate in the competitive examination. This amendment in rule 6(i) of Rules, 2005 is arbitrary. 6. It is also stated that the petitioners are working on Class III posts in the establishment of the High Court and they have 10 years of experience. If larger number of persons participate in the competitive examinations, it would always result in best possible candidates being available for appointment on the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I and therefore, also the amendments in Rules, 2005 vide impugned notification dated 17th August, 2012, known as “The Allahabad High Court Bench Secretaries (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2012”), virtually defeats the very purpose of competitive examinations. 7. He further submits that there is little or no reasonable classification for not treating the petitioners, who are holding Class III Posts in the establishment of the High Court, to be eligible to appear in the competitive examinations specifically with reference to the objects sought to be achieved and therefore, their exclusion is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is further case of the petitioners that they possess better qualifications vis-a-vis Assistant Review Officer/Review officer, therefore, they may be permitted to participate in the competitive examination. 9. Lastly, it is contended that some of the vacancies, which have been advertised in respect of posts of Bench Secretary Grade-I, are of the year prior to 2012 and therefore, Rules, 2012 will not apply. The practice, which was being followed by the High Court prior to the amendments in Rules, 2005, should be directed to be followed in respect of vacancies of the earlier years. 10. Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-High Court on the contrary submits that petitioners were never members of the cadre covered by Rules, 1976. Their appointment was made against the posts, which were created outside the Rules, 1976. 10. Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-High Court on the contrary submits that petitioners were never members of the cadre covered by Rules, 1976. Their appointment was made against the posts, which were created outside the Rules, 1976. It is further stated that in the year 2010, a separate cadre for the employees like the petitioners, who were working in the Computer Section of the Allahabad High Court, has been created by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice in exercise of powers under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India, known as “The Allahabad High Court Computer Section Service Rules, 2010” (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2010”) and that the petitioners have been merged against the cadre posts of Computer Operators Grade-B. For the persons working in the computer cadre, channel of promotion has been provided as Computer Operator Grade-C and thereafter as Programmer Grade-2 onwards. Reference is made to Rules 3 and 12 read with Schedule-I and Schedule-II of Rules, 2010. He therefore, submits that under the Rules, 2005, even prior to its amendment in 2012, only Assistants having ten years of continuous service on Class III posts, were entitled to participate in the competitive examinations to be held for the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I. Petitioners do not answer the description of Assistants. Even if such Console Operators-cum-Data Entry Assistants were earlier permitted to appear in the competition, the same was only a mistake, which need not be repeated. Even otherwise, since now different cadre has been provided for Console Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants like the petitioners, they can have no grievance in the matter of appointment to be made on the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I nor their exclusion can be said to be arbitrary and violative to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. Learned counsel for the High Court points out that the year of vacancy is wholly irrelevant, so far as the recruitment on the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I under Rules, 2005 is concerned, inasmuch as the Rules do not contemplate advertisement of vacancy year-wise. The vacancies which have now been advertised in the year 2013 have necessarily to be filled in accordance with amended Rules, 2012. The vacancies which have now been advertised in the year 2013 have necessarily to be filled in accordance with amended Rules, 2012. Reference is made to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Agarwal and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2011(2) ESC 309 (SC), wherein it has been held that there is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by law existing on the date when the vacancy arises. He further submits that plea that in case, the petitioners are permitted to participate in the process of selections, large number of candidates would become available for being considered and therefore, may result in the best selection for the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I is only an argument of desperation. Petitioners do not belong to the feeding cadre and therefore, they have no right to participate in the process of selection. He submits that it is within the discretion of rule framing authority to lay-down the zone of consideration and once such prescription has been made, the rule can only be challenged on three grounds (a) rule is contrary to the Parent Act, (b) rule framed is not within the authority of the person framing the rule, and (c) it violates any fundamental right of the aggrieved persons. First two grounds have not been pressed. Plea of discrimination, as has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is neither here nor there, in view of the fact that a separate cadre and a separate channel of promotion has been provided for the persons working under Rules, 2010 like the petitioners. 12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition. 13. It is not in dispute that so far as the appointment on Class III posts in the establishment of the High Court, Allahabad is concerned, the same is regulated by Rules, 1976. These Rules, 1976 provide for the cadre of Class III posts and their method of recruitment. Admittedly there exists no post of Console Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistant under Rules, 1976. It is the employees, who were working as Assistants referable to Rules, 1976 were the feeding cadre for appointment as Bench Secretary Grade-I under Rules, 2005. 14. These Rules, 1976 provide for the cadre of Class III posts and their method of recruitment. Admittedly there exists no post of Console Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistant under Rules, 1976. It is the employees, who were working as Assistants referable to Rules, 1976 were the feeding cadre for appointment as Bench Secretary Grade-I under Rules, 2005. 14. We may record that the word “Assistant” has not been defined under Rules, 1976, even otherwise whatever may have been the position with regard to the employees working as Console Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistant being treated to be the Assistant working in Class III, in the establishment of the High Court or not prior to Rules, 2010, the issue has crystallized with the framing of the Rules, 2010, wherein all Console Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants have been designated as Computer Operators Grade-B. Reference Rule-3, Rule-12 read with Schedules-I and II of Rules, 2010. Under Rule-12 of Rules, 2010 a different channel of promotion/appointment on higher posts in the said cadre has been provided. So far as the persons like the petitioners are concerned, the next channel of promotion is to that of the post of Computer Operator Grade-C and thereafter to the post of Programmer Grade-2 onwards. The Rule framing authorities has further laid at rest the doubts if any with regard to the persons eligible to participate in the competitive examinations to be held for the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I by making necessary amendments in Rules, 2006 known as Rules, 2012. The amendments which have been made in the existing Rule-6 (i) of the Allahabad High Court Bench Secretaries (Condition of Service) Rules, 2005 reads as under— 15. It is, therefore, clear that Rules, 2005 as amended in the year 2012 provide for zone of eligibility for appearing in competitive examination for the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I as those working as Review Officer/Assistant Review Officer. The competence of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice to frame rules under Article 229 of the Constitution of India is not challenge. The power to lay down service conditions shall necessarily include the mode and manner of recruitment to the post. The plea of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has only been stated to be rejected. A 16. The power to lay down service conditions shall necessarily include the mode and manner of recruitment to the post. The plea of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has only been stated to be rejected. A 16. As noticed above, under Rules, 2010, a different channel of promotion has been provided for the petitioners and therefore, they cannot insist that merely because they are drawing salary, which is equivalent to the employees working as Review Officer/Assistant Review Officer, which is a Class III post, they should also be held eligible to participate in the competitive examination for the post of Bench Secretary Grade-I against in respect of vacancies which occurred prior to 2012. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Deepak Agarwal (Supra) has held that there is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by law existing on the date when the vacancy arises. The law so laid down applies with full force in the facts of the case, inasmuch as the Rules, 2005 do not contemplate advertisement of the vacancy year-wise nor any other rule in that regard has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. So far as the submission of the petitioners that they are possessed of better qualification vis-a-vis Review Officer/Assistant Review Officer is concerned, we are of the opinion that the submission of the petitioners has no relevance having regard to the statutory rules, which define the zone of consideration. 19. In the totality of the circumstances on record, we find no good ground to interfere either with the amended rules or with the process of selection which has been initiated for appointment as Bench Secretary Grade-I. 20. The present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.