JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Adhikari, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The case of the writ petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as Grade-IV Khalasi on compassionate basis vide office order dated 21.8.2000 (Annexure-C) and since then he has been working in such capacity till date. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Government of Assam vide office order dated 23.2.2004 (Annexure-H) had also published the provisional inter-se seniority list wherein the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No.55. 3. As per the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Services Rules, 1973 (Service Rules of 1973 for short), more particularly, Rule 10(3) provides that appointment to the post of Junior Assistant amongst others is to be made by selection on the basis of suitability with due regard to seniority from amongst the Grade-IV staff who possess Higher Secondary or equivalent examination with service rendered for not less than 5 years or from the Grade-IV staff who have passed matriculation or equivalent examination and have rendered not less than 7 years of continuous service. Below Rule-10 provides that even if the strength of the cadre in the post of Junior Assistant is less than one, even then, one post shall be filled up under Rule 10(3) as the case may be. 4. The petitioner having rendered his service as Grade-IV staff since the year 2000 came to be considered for promotion to the Grade III post of Junior Assistant pursuant to the representation submitted by him on 29.10.2015 (Annexure-L). Although the case of his promotion was processed by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning at some length, the respondents on account of the Rules of 1973 having been amended vide Notification No. ABP-199/2015/3 dated 27.9.2016 and which was published in the Assam Gazette on 28.10.2016 did not process the case of the petitioner any further. The amended Rules of 1973 amongst others prescribes the qualification of a Bachelors Degree from an University recognized by the Government and the petitioner only being a matriculate was therefore not considered for promotion to the Grade-III post of Junior Assistant. The petitioner being aggrieved is before this Court through the instant writ petition. 5. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. The amended Rules of 1973 amongst others prescribes the qualification of a Bachelors Degree from an University recognized by the Government and the petitioner only being a matriculate was therefore not considered for promotion to the Grade-III post of Junior Assistant. The petitioner being aggrieved is before this Court through the instant writ petition. 5. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. B.J. Ghosh, the learned counsel submits that as per the Rules of 1973, his stipulation of being matriculate with 7 years of continuous service in Grade-IV post is the requirement and the petitioner in fact has rendered his service since the year 2000 and he is also a matriculate. Considering the vacancy available, the respondent authorities cannot deny the petitioner of his right to be considered for promotion to the Grade-III post of Junior Assistant. By referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner on 7.8.2017, he submits that the State respondents in reply to the query made by the petitioner with regard to the vacancy position for the Grade-III post have clearly stated that there were 35 vacancies in the Grade-IV post in the year 2014, 16 posts in the year 2015, 23 posts in 2016 and 29 posts in the year 2017. He submits that since the petitioner was considered for promotion pursuant to the representation submitted by him on 29.10.2015, the petitioner should be considered against the vacancy which has been indicated by the respondents themselves. 6. In so far as the grounds on which the State respondents have denied the petitioner from being considered for promotion on account of the Rules of 1973 being amended with stipulation of a Bachelors Degree for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, he submits that the same cannot be tenable in as much as the vacancies which existed prior to the amendment will have to be filled up as per the relevant rules prevailing when the vacancies occurred. In this connection, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 , B.L. Gupta & anr. Vs. M.C.D. reported in (1989) 9 SCC 223, P. Mahendran & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (1990) 1 SCC 411 and B.K. Srininvasan & anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1059 . Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 , B.L. Gupta & anr. Vs. M.C.D. reported in (1989) 9 SCC 223, P. Mahendran & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (1990) 1 SCC 411 and B.K. Srininvasan & anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1059 . He submits that the Apex Court has clearly laid down the law with regard to inapplicability of the amended rules for the posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of the rules. In other words, he submits that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would invariably be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules. The law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court still holds the field as on date and therefore, the amendment of the Rules of 1973 which came into force from 28.10.2016 can in no way be applied to the case of the petitioner. He thus submits that a suitable direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for promotion to the Grade-III post of Junior Assistant by applying the Rules of 1973 prior to its amendment in the year 2016. 7. Mr. M.R. Adhikari, the learned Government Advocate by relying upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2 on 26.4.2017 submits that although the case of the petitioner was considered for his promotion but due to the Rules of 1973 having been amended by Notification dated 27.9.2016 and which came into effect from 28.10.2016, the petitioner only being a matriculate cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant since the qualification now required is a Bachelor’s Degree from a recognized University. He also submits that even on the consideration of the seniority position of the petitioner in the Grade-IV post, there are others who are more senior to him and therefore even on this ground as well, the petitioner cannot claim his promotion as a matter of right. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. The Rules of 1973 stipulates that in order to be considered for promotion to the Grade-III post of Junior Assistant from amongst the Grade-IV staff, he or she possess the Higher Secondary or equivalent examination with 5 years of service or should have passed matriculation of equivalent examination with not less than 7 years of continuous service. The Rule of 1973 further provides that the consideration of Grade-IV staff for appointment to the Grade-III post of Junior Assistant should not exceed 10% of the cadre strength of the establishment concerned. It also further provides that if the cadre strength be less than one, still one post should be filled up in terms of Rule-10 (3) in so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he being the Grade-IV employee. From the pleadings of the parties and from the documents obtained by the petitioner through an RTI application, admittedly there are vacancies in the Grade-III posts in which eligible candidates as per Rules 1973 can be considered for appointment. As regards the applicability of the amended rules which came into force w.e.f. 28.10.2016, the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the petitioner i.e. in the case of Y.V Rangaiah & Ors (supra) as well as the other subsequent decisions requires no elaboration in so far as the facts situation involves in the present writ proceeding is concerned. The State respondents therefore cannot debar the petitioner from being considered for appointment to the Grade-III post by applying the amended Rules of 1973. It is true that the petitioner may not have an enforceable right to be promoted to the Grade-III post but he definitely has the right to be considered for promotion subject to fulfillment of the relevant criteria as per Rules 1973 prior to its amendment. The State respondents have initiated the consideration of the petitioner for his promotion pursuant to his representation dated 29.10.2015 which in my considered opinion should be carried forward and the petitioner be considered for his promotion alongwith other similar eligible candidates to the Grade-III post of Junior Assistant against the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules of 1973. 9. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the Grade-III post of Junior Assistant as per Rules of 1973 and against the vacancy which occurred prior to the amendment of Rules of 1973 alongwith all other eligible candidates. Such consideration should be done within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.