JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge: The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming therein the following substantive reliefs:- i) That the impugned Recruitment & Promotion Rules 2010 Annexure P/3 may kindly be quashed being arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution. ii) That the Respondent 1 & 2 may kindly be directed to reframe the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Supdt. Gr.1 giving reasonable and constitutional look making the person holding feeder category post for the longer time as compared to the person holding feeder post for shorter period. iii) That the Respondents may kindly be restrained from holding DPC and filling up the post of Supdt. Gr.1 on the basis of impugned Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2010 (Annexure P/3). 2. The petitioner is working as a Personal Assistant and claims that action of respondents No. 1 & 2 in framing and amending the Recruitment and Promotion Rules was simply in order to deprive the petitioner, who was senior in the feeder category to the private respondents of his legitimate claim. The combined seniority list of Superintendent Grade-IV/ Personal Assistant on the basis of length of service from their initial rung i.e. clerk and steno-typist without disturbing their inter-se- seniority as on 15.11.2010 is as under:- Sl.No . Name Designat ion Date of birth Date of joining on the post of clerk/ steno typist Date of joining on the post of Superintend ent Grade-II/ P.A. Educational qualification Permanent/ temporary SC/ST/ Ex-service man Remarks . 1. Jagjit Singh Supdt. Grade-II 4.9.1957 06-11-1980 10-4-2007 Graduate Permanent - - 2. Piar Singh Supdt. Grade-II 06-06-1956 10-11-1980 10-04-2007 Hr.Secondary Permanent SC - 3. Om Chand Supdt. Grade-II 20-11-1959 15-11-1980 10-4-2007 Hr.Secondary Permanent - - 4. Ramesh Chand Supdt. Grade-II 10-05-1956 17-11-1980 02-03-2009 Matric Temporary - - 5. Ramesh Chand Personal Asstt. 18-07-1966 29-09-1986 23-08-2006 M.A. Permanent SC - 3. As per notification dated 30.6.1988 vide which Recruitment and Promotion Rules were notified for the post of Superintendent Grade-I, against column No. 10, the mode of filling up the post of Superintendent Grade-I was 100% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment, while against column No. 11 of the rules, it was provided as follows:- 11. In case of recruitment by promotion, By promotion from deputation/ transfer grades from which amongst the promotions, deputation/ transfer is to be Superintendent Grade III made. In case of recruitment by promotion, By promotion from deputation/ transfer grades from which amongst the promotions, deputation/ transfer is to be Superintendent Grade III made. with three years regular service or ad hoc service (rendered upto 31.12.1983) in the grade, failing which from amongst the Superintendent Grade III with five years regular or ad hoc (rendered upto 31.12.1983) service, rendered as Superintendent Grade III/ Assistant/ Accountant/ Senior Scale Stenographer combined, failing both from amongst the Assistants/ Accountants/ Senior Scale Stenographers with six years regular or ad hoc (rendered up to 31.12.1983) service in the grade. (For purpose of promotion a combined seniority list of all the eligible Officials will be prepared based on length of regular service in the respective grades and in a manner so that their inter-se-seniority may not be disturbed. But the Superintendent Grade III will be placed enblock above the Assistants/ Accountants/ Senior Scale Stenographers). NOTE: In……. (not being reproduced being not much relevant). 4. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules were repealed and vide notification dated 2.9.2005 the Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2005 were brought in force for the post of Superintendent Grade-I. In column No. 11 of these rules, it was provided as under:- 11. In case of recruitment By promotion from the: by promotion, deputation, i) Personal Assistant with three years transfer, grade from which regular service or regular combined with promotion/ transfer is to be continuous adhoc service failing which by made promotion from amongst the Personal Assistant with nine years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service as Personal Assistant and Senior Scale Stenographer. ii) Senior Assistant/ Sr. Scale Stenographer with 11 years of regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service in the grade. For the purpose of promotion a combined seniority list of eligible Personal Assistant, Senior Assistants and Sr. Scale Stenographer on the basis of length of service from their initial rung i.e. clerk & Steno Typist without disturbing their unit-wise seniority shall be prepared. (1)………. (a)………. (2)……(Not reproduced being as usual and not much relevant) 5. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 2005 were again repealed vide notification 28.4.2010 and against column No. 11, the following provision was made: 11. (1)………. (a)………. (2)……(Not reproduced being as usual and not much relevant) 5. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 2005 were again repealed vide notification 28.4.2010 and against column No. 11, the following provision was made: 11. In case of recruitment by By promotion from amongst the promotion, deputation, transfer, Superintendents Grade II and grade from which promotion/Personal Assistants with three years transfer is to be made regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service in the grade failing which by promotion from amongst the Superintendent Grade-II/ Personal Assistants with 9 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service as Superintendent Grade-II and Senior Assistants/ Personal Assistant and Senior Scale Stenographers combined out of which two years service as Superintendent Gr-II/ Personal Assistant is essential. Failing both by promotion from amongst the Sr. Asstts/ Sr. Scale Stenographer with 11 years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service in the respective grade. Note: 1 For the purpose of promotion from amongst the Superintendent Gr.II & Personal Assistant a combined seniority list of eligible officials on the basis of length of service from their initial rung i.e. clerk and steno typist without disturbing their unit wise inter-se seniority shall be prepared. Note-II: For the purpose of promotion from amongst the Sr. Assistants/ Sr. Scale Stenographers a combined seniority list of eligible officials on the basis of length of service from their initial rung i.e. clerk and steno typist without disturbing their unit wise inter-se-seniority shall be prepared. Provided…….. (not much relevant as such not being reproduced). 6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the old Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 1988 were repealed just to debar the petitioner from the promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I. In the earlier Rules, the provision was that post of Superintendent Grade-I was to be filled up from amongst the Personal Assistants/ Superintendent Grade III (as there were no post of Superintendent Grade II in the Department at that time) on the basis of their length of service in the feeder category, which post in the revised Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 2010 provision against column No. 11 had been framed in such a manner that instead of length of service in the feeder category the seniority from the lowest rung post i.e. clerk/ stenotypist will be counted for the purpose of promotion. According to the petitioner the net result of such provision would be that person holding senior post in the feeder category for considerable long time would be superseded by a person holding equivalent status post in the feeder category for less period. 7. The petitioner has challenged the action of respondents in holding DPC to fill up the vacant post of Superintendent Grade I on the basis of Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2010, as the same would deprive the petitioner from promotion which would be unconstitutional, wrong and illegal. According to the petitioner, he being senior to respondents No. 3 to 7 and having longer length of service in feeder post i.e. Personal Assistant and Superintendent grade II cannot be deprived of his right to promotion in a whimsical and arbitrary manner as is sought to be done. The entire exercise has been aimed at depriving the petitioner holding senior post of Personal Assistant for a considerable long time w.e.f. 23.8.2006 from his promotion vis-à-vis the respondents No. 3 to 6 were promoted to the equivalent post of Superintendent Grade II much after the promotion of the petitioner. 8. The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed the reply wherein it has been stated that Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Superintendent Grade-I, two categories i.e. Superintendent Grade-II and Personal Assistant have been included in the feeder category. These two categories belong to two different and equivalent but independent of each other streams i.e. Ministerial (Clerks/ Sr. Asstt./ Supdt. Grade-II) and Personal (Steno Typist/ Sr. Scale Stenographer/ Personal Asstt.) and therefore the level of stagnation in the said streams can never be the same. Therefore, taking into consideration the length of service from initial rungs in both streams i.e. Clerks/ Steno-Typists for combined seniority was fair and justified and in favour of incumbents of both the streams. It was further averred that similar provision is being followed in all departments in case of promotion to the posts of clerk from all the categories of Class IV employees under 10% promotion quota. 9. It was further stated that actual line of promotion of ministerial staff is Clerks-Sr. Asstt. – Supdt Grade II-Superintendent Grade-I and that of the personal staff is Stenotypist- Sr. Scale Stenographer- Personal Asstt.- Private Secretary. 9. It was further stated that actual line of promotion of ministerial staff is Clerks-Sr. Asstt. – Supdt Grade II-Superintendent Grade-I and that of the personal staff is Stenotypist- Sr. Scale Stenographer- Personal Asstt.- Private Secretary. Since there is no post of Private Secretary in the department, therefore, the post of Personal Assistant has also been included in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I just to provide them further opportunity of promotion. In order to justify their stand, the respondents have placed on record the factual details existing in the department, which is reproduced hereinunder:- “3. As per the scenario prevailing in Fisheries Department a Steno typist is getting promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer after 10 years of service and a Clerk is getting promotion to the equivalent post of Senior Asstt. After rendering more than 20 years of service. Sh. Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj (Petitioner) initially appointed as Steno-typist on 29.9.86 got promoted to the post of Sr. Scale Stenographer on 31.7.1990 & thereafter to the post of Personal Asstt. on 23.8.2006 after a total length of service 20.5 years whereas Sh. Jagjeet Singh (Respondent No.4) appointed as clerk on 6.11.1980 got promoted to the post of Sr. Asstt. on 31.3.1997 and thereafter to the post of Supdt. Grade-II on dated 10.4.2007 after the total length of 26.5 years. Hence, due to early promotions of incumbents of one line of promotion (i.e. Steno-typist/ Senior Scale Stenographer/ Personal Assistant which are 03 in number), the chances of incumbents of the other line of promotion (i.e. Clerk/ Sr. Asstt./ Supdt G-II which are 52 in number) of getting promoted to the post of Supdt G-I would be rare in the absence of the foot notes I & II regarding initial rung under Clause 11 of the R&P Rules.” 10. The respondents have further alleged that similar provision of taking length of service from initial rung i.e. Clerk/ Steno- Typist is already existing in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules pertaining to Superintendent Grade-I in various other departments of the government, i.e.: 1. Industries Deptt. Vide Notification No. 5-13/72-SI(Estt.), dated 15th March, 1997, (Copy enclosed Annexure-R-1). 2. Labour & Employment Deptt. Vide No. 2-10/93-shram, dated 9.9.1998. 3. Education Deptt. vide No. Kha(15)7/95- Shiksha-K, dated 4. Town and Country Planning Deptt. Vide No. T.C.P.A(3)-7/97, dated 15th November, 1997. 26.8.97 11. Industries Deptt. Vide Notification No. 5-13/72-SI(Estt.), dated 15th March, 1997, (Copy enclosed Annexure-R-1). 2. Labour & Employment Deptt. Vide No. 2-10/93-shram, dated 9.9.1998. 3. Education Deptt. vide No. Kha(15)7/95- Shiksha-K, dated 4. Town and Country Planning Deptt. Vide No. T.C.P.A(3)-7/97, dated 15th November, 1997. 26.8.97 11. It was specifically denied that Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2005 were aimed at the Personal stream as compared to the ministerial stream and the provision had been existing from the year 2005 and had not been introduced for the first time in the year 2010. 12. The private respondents also filed their reply wherein it was stated that there was stagnation in the line of ministerial staff as compared to that of personal staff. This would be clear from para-2 of the reply, which reads as under:- “That as per scenario prevailing in the Fisheries department, Steno-typist is getting promotion to the post of senior scale stenographer after 10 years of service and a Clerk, on the other hand, is getting promotion to the equivalent post of Senior Assistant after rendering more than 20 years of service. The R & P Rules, 2010 and the Footnotes 1 & 2 under Column 11 have been notified keeping in view the aforesaid position. Due to early promotion of incumbents of one line of promotion (Stenotypist/Senior Scale Stenographer/Personal Assistant) the chances of incumbents of other line of promotion (Clerk/Senior Assistant/Supdt.G-II) of getting promoted to the post of Supdt. G-I would be rare in the absence of footnotes 1 & 2 regarding initial rung under Column II of the R & P Rules. The R & P Rules for the post of Supdt. GI have been amended on 02.09.2005 thereby incorporating the criteria of initial rung for preparing the combined seniority list. The petitioner had never objected to this amendment made to the R & P, Rules on 02.09.2005 and now for the first time after a lapse of 5 ½ years, the petitioner is objecting the said criteria for the first time. The R & P, Rules dated 02.09.2005 have been again amended on 28.04.2010 just to incorporate the newly created posts of Supdt.G-II in the feeder category. The provisions of Supdt.G-II have been created in the Fisheries Department for the first time on 14.12.2006 by up gradation of same posts of Senior Assistant. The R & P, Rules dated 02.09.2005 have been again amended on 28.04.2010 just to incorporate the newly created posts of Supdt.G-II in the feeder category. The provisions of Supdt.G-II have been created in the Fisheries Department for the first time on 14.12.2006 by up gradation of same posts of Senior Assistant. Therefore, the petition as filed is also bad on account of delay and laches.” 13. The petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder to the replies filed on behalf of the respondents. We have heard Sh. H.K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General assisted by Sh. Ramesh Verma, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sh. B.M. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6. 14. The petitioner has stated that his case is fully covered by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakuntala Sharma (Mrs) vs. High Court of H.P. at Shimla and another (1994) 2 SCC 411 , wherein it has been held that two unequal sets of posts cannot be placed on a par with each other. He further argued that these rules were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it treats unequals as equals. 15. We have gone through the judgement in Shakuntala Sharma’s case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner particularly para-12, which is extracted below:- “12. In this case, it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether Rule 11 of 1990 Rules which provided for the promotion to the post of the Superintendent was valid or not. Even assuming that the validity of the 1990 Rules was not challenged, that fact by itself would not validate the present Rule 10 if it suffers from an inherent infirmity. The basic weakness in the present Rule 10 is that it places two unequal sets of posts on a par with each other and also prescribes qualifying service for the higher post as well. The posts of Deputy Superintendents and Revisors admittedly are posts higher than those of Senior Assistants and Translators respectively. If the incumbents of both the sets of posts are to be made eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent, no qualifying period of service can be prescribed for the incumbents of the posts of Deputy Superintendents and Revisors. The posts of Deputy Superintendents and Revisors admittedly are posts higher than those of Senior Assistants and Translators respectively. If the incumbents of both the sets of posts are to be made eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent, no qualifying period of service can be prescribed for the incumbents of the posts of Deputy Superintendents and Revisors. If Senior Assistants and Translators are to be provided with promotional avenue, more posts of Deputy Superintendents and Revisors which are above the posts of Senior Assistants and Translators respectively, should be created, and first the Senior Assistants and Translators have to be promoted to the said posts. In fact, the appellant who was a Translator was first promoted to the post of Revisor. We are informed that no eligible Deputy Superintendent was available for being considered to the post of Superintendent and hence Respondent 2 who was holding the post of Senior Assistant (post below that of Deputy Superintendent) had to be promoted to the said post as he had put in six years' service as required by the said Rule 10. Rule 10 of the 1992 Rules is thus inequitous and indefensibly unjust. It violates Article 14 of the Constitution since it treats unequals as equals and what is more gives unwarranted advantage to the incumbents of the lower posts over the incumbents of the higher posts.” We fail to appreciate as to how the judgement cited above is applicable to the facts of the present case. The post of Superintendent Grade II cannot be said to be a post lower than the post of Personal Assistant. Even otherwise it is clearly established on record that petitioner had joined the department virtually six years later to the private respondents and has enjoyed the benefit of accelerated post in view of less stagnation in the stream relating to personal staff as compared to that of ministerial staff. 16. The respondent being a State and model employer owes a duty to act fairly qua its employees and in case it genuinely felt that a section of its employees was being deprived of their legitimate promotion on account of faulty rules, there was nothing which would prevent them from amending the rules. 17. 16. The respondent being a State and model employer owes a duty to act fairly qua its employees and in case it genuinely felt that a section of its employees was being deprived of their legitimate promotion on account of faulty rules, there was nothing which would prevent them from amending the rules. 17. The learned Advocate General has rightly relied upon the exposition of law in P.U. Joshi and Others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others (2003) 2 SCC 632, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” 18. The exposition of law applies on all fours in the case in hand. The learned Advocate General has further relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration through the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh vs. Usha Kheterpal Wale & Others (2011) 9 SCC 645 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. Courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the concerned authority so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of Constitution, statute and Rules.[See J. Rangaswamy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh- 1990 (1) SCC 288 and P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General -2003 (2) SCC 632]. In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of Ph.D. is unreasonable.” 19. In terms of settled law, it is not for the court to direct the government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. It is for the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/ subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. The court would only interfere in case the rules have no rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and rules are otherwise violative of the provisions of the Constitution, statute and the rules. No such case is made out by the petitioner. 20. The court would only interfere in case the rules have no rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and rules are otherwise violative of the provisions of the Constitution, statute and the rules. No such case is made out by the petitioner. 20. In case by the amendment of the rules the chances of promotion of petitioner have diminished, the same cannot be a cause calling for interference by this court as it is well settled that mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the conditions of service. A right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of promotion are not. (See: State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni (1981) 4 SCC 130 . To the similar effect is the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Jagadeesan v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 228 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held “the only effect is that his chances of promotion or his right to be considered for promotion to the higher post is adversely affected. This cannot be regarded as retrospective effect being given to the amendment of the rules carried out by the impugned notification and the challenge to the said notification on that ground must fail.” Again in the case of Union of India v. S.L. Dutta (1991) 1 SCC 505 , the Hon”ble Supreme Court held “in our opinion, what was affected by the change of policy were merely the chances of promotion of the Air Vice-Marshals in the Navigation Stream. As far as the posts of Air Marshals open to the Air Vice-Marshals in the said stream were concerned, their right or eligibility to be considered for promotion still remained and hence, there was no change in their conditions of service. 21. In our view, the respondents/ State by amending the rules have taken care to balance the inequalities, which had been existing in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, whereby one category was getting a slight edge and advantage over the other in matters of promotion to the higher echelons of service. In doing so, it cannot be held that respondents have in any manner violated the provisions of any rule, statute or the Constitution. In doing so, it cannot be held that respondents have in any manner violated the provisions of any rule, statute or the Constitution. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.