JUDGMENT : Abdul Moin, J. 1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned requisition dated May, 2016 forwarded by the opposite party No.3, contained in Annexure Nos.2 to this writ petition as well as summon the original from the opposite parties and quashed the same. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction of suitable nature declaring Rule 5 of the U.P. Transport Service (5th Amendment) Rules, 2016 notified on 11/04/2016 (contained as Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition) ultravires to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to the extent of fixation of quota. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to consider the promotion on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) without implementing the impugned amended Rule 5 of the U.P. Transport Service (5th Amendment) Rules, 2016 by giving benefit of U.P. Government Servant Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006 as given to officers belonging to post of Regional Inspector. (iv) issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case. (v) to allow the writ petition of the petitioner with cost." 3. From a perusal of the aforesaid reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, it clearly comes out that the vires of Rule 5 of the U.P. Transport Service (5th Amendment) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 2016 Amendment), have been challenged to the extent of fixation of quota and it is contended that by the said fixation of quota, the constitutional rights of the petitioner provided under Article 16 of the Constitution of India are being violated. Further the petitioner has also challenged the requisition dated May, 2016 and has prayed for consideration of his promotion on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) without implementing the impugned amendment and by giving benefit of U.P. Government Servant Relaxation in Qualifying Service for Promotion Rules, 2006 as given to the officers belonging to the post of Regional Inspector. 4. 4. The case setforth by the petitioner is that in the year 2007, an advertisement was published by the U.P. Public Service Commission for Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service Examination against which the petitioner applied and participated in the same. After due process of selection, on 29.12.2010, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport), which is a gazetted post and falls in the P.C.S. Allied Services, and joined on the same date. The services in the Transport Department are governed by the U.P. Transport Service Rules, 1990. Rule 5(1) of the said rules provided the source of appointment and for the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer appointment is to be made 50% through direct recruitment and 50% by promotion and under Rule 16, the criteria for promotion was on the basis of merit. Copy of the U.P. Transport Service Rules, 1990 is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is stated that subsequently on 10.10.1994, the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 were promulgated and in view of the overriding effect provided under Rule 5, the criteria for promotion on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) and other posts except the post of Head of the Department and the post just one rank below the post of Head of the Department is to be filled on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Thereafter on 5.1.2010, the U.P. Transport Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 2010 were notified amending Rule 5 and providing that the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer shall be filled 50% by promotion through Commission from amongst the permanent Passenger/Goods Tax Officers, Technical Inspectors, Regional Inspectors (Technical) and Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport) who have put in at least 5 years continuous service as on the first date of year of recruitment. Subsequently, 4th Amendment has been notified on 23.8.2013 fixing quota in promotion on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale). The petitioner further contends that in the Government Order dated 3.5.2011 it was provided that the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Officers shall be filled 100% by direct recruitment. However, subsequently the same was amended vide Government Order dated 28.6.2013 which provided that 50% posts of Passenger/Goods Tax Officers shall be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion of the clerical cadre i.e. Senior Assistant. However, subsequently the same was amended vide Government Order dated 28.6.2013 which provided that 50% posts of Passenger/Goods Tax Officers shall be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion of the clerical cadre i.e. Senior Assistant. Thus the petitioner contends that by making 4th Amendment and the impugned 5th Amendment, those officers who were not born in the cadre of Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and Regional Inspectors at the time of the initial appointment of the petitioner in the year 2010, have come in the zone of consideration for promotion on the next higher post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) or in other words, the persons junior to the petitioner whose services have been merged on the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and Regional Inspectors became eligible to be considered for promotion on the next higher post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale). Being aggrieved with the said amendment and fixation of quota within the promotion quota, which has been fixed as 24%, 25% and 1% for Passenger/Goods Tax Officers, Regional Inspector (Technical) and Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport) respectively, the petitioner along with several persons preferred several representations but to no avail. On the one hand the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed and on the other hand in pursuance to the 4th Amendment a requisition was sent ignoring the claim of the petitioner and including the name of juniors to the petitioner. On the one hand the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed and on the other hand in pursuance to the 4th Amendment a requisition was sent ignoring the claim of the petitioner and including the name of juniors to the petitioner. The petitioner further contends that following are the sanctioned posts of the officers being 250 total in number, which are the source of recruitment of 50% post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) for a total number of 68 posts by way of promotion:- Description of Posts Number of Post Passengers/Goods Tax Officers 120 Regional Inspector (Technical) 124 Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport) 6 Total 250 It is contended by the petitioner that as per the proportional ratio 6 posts of Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport) would form a certain percentage of quota, i.e. 2 in number as per his calculation for the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) out of 68 posts but the respondents by following a wrong procedure, have not allocated a uniform policy or procedure for fixation of quota and accordingly fixation of 1% quota for the post of Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport) for filling in 68 post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) as done by the impugned amendment is too less with the result that the Passengers/Goods Tax Officer and Regional Inspector (Technical), who are more in number, would have a larger share in their promotion vis-a-vis the Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport). The petitioner has also given a chart in paragraph 32 of the petition detailing the retirements for different posts/cadres till the year 2028 to indicate that he would never be promoted until one Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport) Sri Nand Kumar, who has already been promoted as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) retires from that very post. Thus the petitioner contends that on account of having only 1% quota persons who join service in the feeder cadre subsequent to the petitioner though as Passenger/Goods Tax Officer and Regional Inspector (Technical) would be promoted and thus by fixation of the quota of 1%, the legal/fundamental rights of the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the next higher post, is severely jeopardized/restricted. 5. 5. The ground set forth for raising challenge to the 2016 Amendment are that the same are patently violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the constitutional rights enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and amounts to creating a class within a class and that the amendment has been introduced in order to favour certain class of officers, who are junior to the petitioner and not qualified for promotion. Consequently, the requisition dated May, 2016 forwarded by respondent No.3 for promotion on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) as annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, has also been challenged which would be liable to be set-aside in case the 2016 Amendment is held to be ultra vires to the constitution. 6. In support of his arguments, Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- (i) A. Satyanarayana and others vs. S. Purushotham and others reported in (2008)5 S.C.C. 416 ; (ii) State of U.P. and another vs. Ram Gopal Shukla reported in (1981)3 S.C.C. 1 ; (iii) K.T. Plantation Private Limited and another vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2011)9 S.C.C. 1 ; (iv) Ajit Singh and others (II) vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (1999)7 S.C.C. 209 ; (v) Goa Glass Fibre Limited vs. State of Goa and another reported in (2010)6 S.C.C. 499 . 7. On the other hand, Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3, while placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3, has contended that 2016 Amendment fixing the quota in the feeding cadre for the purpose of their promotion, has been done by following the principle of fixation of the ratio in proportion to the ratio of the sanctioned strength in the cadre which would be absolutely just, legal and valid. Elaborating this Sri Rizvi submits that in the promotional quota to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale), the quota for the posts of Passenger Tax/Goods Tax Officer, Regional Inspectors (Technical) and Assistant Prosecution Officers (Transport) in the feeding cadre has been fixed separately and distinctively. Further, no person junior to the petitioner in the cadre of his post i.e. of Assistant Prosecution Officer (Transport) has been considered for promotion. Further, no person junior to the petitioner in the cadre of his post i.e. of Assistant Prosecution Officer (Transport) has been considered for promotion. Furthermore it is contended that it is not appropriate for the petitioner to compare his seniority vis-a-vis incumbents of the other posts/cadres because all the three posts in the feeding cadre are filled up by the process of recruitment/appointment under their respective (different) service rules, and their seniority also is fixed separately and distinctively. Under the Government Order dated 18.3.2011 issued by the Finance (Pay Commission) Section-2 (Annexure-11 of the writ petition), issued on the 10th recommendation of the Pay Committee (2008) made in respect of the Transport Department, the cadres in the Transport Department have been restructured which is free from any iota of possibility or scope of partiality or favouritism with any cadre. Under the Government Order dated 3.5.2011 of the Transport Section-3, Government of U.P. issued in furtherance of the aforesaid Government Order dated 18.3.2011, there was a provision of recruitment on 128 posts of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) in the Transport Commissioner Organisation out of which 50% of these posts are to be filled by direct recruitment while against the remaining posts 49% are to be filled up by way of promotion from the posts of Passenger/Goods Tax Officer and Regional Inspector (Technical) while the remaining 1% posts are to be filled up by way of promotion from the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer (Transport). Since no separate quota for the posts of Passenger Tax/Goods Tax Officer and Regional Inspector (Technical) was fixed there was a practical difficulty in preparing the eligibility list of the candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale), and in view of such practical difficulty, the 2016 Amendment have been framed and notified vide the Government Notification dated 11.4.2016 issued by the Transport Section-3, Government of U.P. which provides for separate quota of the different posts in the feeding cadre proportionate to the ratio of their sanctioned strength in the cadre, from amongst whom the promotions are to be made to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) which is absolutely just, proper, valid, legal, in accordance with the Constitution of India and free from any vice legal, procedural or otherwise. In paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit the calculation of quota has been indicated which is being reproduced below:- "[Total/Cumulative No. of Posts of the Feeding Cadre (i.e. Passenger/Goods Tax Officer (120), Regional Inspector (Technical) (124) and Assistant Prosecution Officer (Transport) (06) = 250 No. of Posts of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) to be filled by promotion (i.e. 50% of the Sanctioned Cadre Strength) = 68 Therefore, the proportional ratio of the post per candidate = 68/250 = 0.272] Passenger/Goods Tax Officer Regional Inspector (Technical) Assistant Prosecution Officer (Transport) 120 x 0.272 124 x 0.272 06 x 0.272 32.640 33.728 1.632 32 Posts 33 Posts 01 Post Total 66 It is further submitted that the Government has provided for the grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP) for the employees who do not get an avenue for promotion to the next higher post inasmuch as such employees would be getting the benefit of first, second and third ACP on completion of 10 years, 16 years and 26 years of the service and accordingly the petitioner would not be put to any loss as he would be getting the financial benefits as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme in case he does not get further promotion. During the course of arguments and upon noticing the incongruity in the calculation of ratios in the aforesaid chart, which made the total number of post as 66 after calculating the ratio instead of the sanctioned strength of 68 posts, Sri Rizvi filed a supplementary counter affidavit duly explaining that earlier the ratios have been calculated by taking the proportionate ratio of the three cadres/posts in the feeding cadre vis-a-vis the proportionate posts to be filled by promotion i.e. 68 in number but in fact the ratios arrived at of 24:25:01 in the feeding cadre posts of Passenger/Goods Tax Officer, Regional Inspector (Technical) and Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport) has been arrived out of the total existing 136 posts of which 50% posts are to be filled under promotion quota and accordingly the under noted calculation chart has been indicated:- From Passenger/ Goods Tax Officer (24%) From Regional Inspector (Technical) (25%) From Assistant Prosecuting Officers (Transport) (01%) 136X24 = 32.64 100 i.e. 33 posts 136x25 = 34.00 100 i.e. 34 posts 136x01 = 1.36 100 i.e. 01 post Explanation Since the figure after decimal is above 05 so the same has to be treated as 01 and thus the 32.64 has been calculated as 33 posts Explanation 34 posts Explanation Since the figure after decimal is below 0.5 so calculated as 01 post Thus the total number of post to be filled in under the promotion quota of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) becomes 68 in the following manner:- Name of Post Percentage of Quota Total number of Post Passenger/Goods Tax Officer 24% 33 Regional Inspector (Technical) 25% 34 Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport) 01% 01 Total 68 While calculating the total number of posts the figure below 0.5 has been ignored and above 0.5 has been treated as 01. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 that the quota so fixed has been arrived at in a particular manner seeing the number of eligible employees in the feeding cadre and accordingly quota has been fixed. It is further argued that the petitioners do not have any justiciable ground to challenge the said fixation of quota keeping in view the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- (i) Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani reported in (2008)9 SCC 242 ; (ii) A.P. Cooperative Vs. It is further argued that the petitioners do not have any justiciable ground to challenge the said fixation of quota keeping in view the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- (i) Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani reported in (2008)9 SCC 242 ; (ii) A.P. Cooperative Vs. M. Sheshagiri Rao and others reported in (2007)13 SCC 322; (iii) Sudhir Kumar Consul vs. Allahabad Bank reported in (2011)3 SCC 486 . 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record. What we find is that by means of the 2016 Amedment a quota was sought to be introduced as 2016 Amendment in the following manner, which for the sake of convenience and the present controversy, is being reproduced below:- "2. In the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service Rules, 1990, hereinafter referred to as the said rules, in rule 5 for existing clause (1) set out in column 1 below, the clause as set out in column 2 shall be substituted, namely:- COLUMN-1 Existing Clause COLUMN-2 Clause as hereby substituted (1) Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) (i) Fifty percent by direct Recruitment through the Commission on the basis of the result of the Combined State Services' Examination. (ii) Forty nine percent by promotion through the Commission from amongst substantively appointed Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and Regional Inspectors (Technical) who have completed five years service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment. (iii) One percent by promotion through the Commission from amongst substantively appointed Assistant Prosecuting Officers (Transport who have completed five years service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment. Provided that if sufficient number of eligible or suitable candidates are not available for promotion, the post may be filled by direct recruitment through the Commission on the basis of the result of the Combined State Services' Examination. (1) Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) (i) Fifty percent by direct recruitment through the Commission on the basis of the result of the Combined State Services' Examination. (ii) Twenty four percent by promotion through the Commission from amongst substantively appointed Passenger/Goods Tax Officers, who have completed five years service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment. (ii) Twenty four percent by promotion through the Commission from amongst substantively appointed Passenger/Goods Tax Officers, who have completed five years service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment. (iii) Twenty five percent by promotion through the Commission from amongst substantively appointed Regional Inspectors (Technical) who have completed five years service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment. (iv) One percent by promotion through the Commission from amongst substantively appointed Assistant Prosecuting Officers (Transport) who have completed five years service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment: Provided that if sufficient number of eligible or suitable candidates are not available for promotion, the post may be filled by direct recruitment through the Commission on the basis of the result of the Combined State Services' Examination. 9. Earlier the quota fixed for promotion to the post of Assistant Regional Officer (Ordinary Scale) was 49% from amongst substantively appointed Passenger/Goods Tax Officer and Regional Inspectors, and 1% by promotion from substantively appointed Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport). Even the earlier rule was introduced by means of 4th Amendment in the rules in the year 2013 which has been made subject to challenge in Writ Petition (S/B) No.18 of 2015 inre: Rajesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others. 10. The grounds of challenge to the 2016 Amendment have already been elaborated above by us. 11. It is no longer res-integra that rules can only be challenged on limited grounds. Admittedly in the instant case the challenge to the 2016 Amendment is primarily centered on the quota which has been fixed for promotion to the next higher post on the ground that it is violating the fundamental as well as constitutional rights of the petitioner provided under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. We would have to see whether the State is empowered to fix a quota in the feeding cadre for the promotion of its employees. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the matters relating to creation and abolition of post, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to malafides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also repeatedly held that Courts of law cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or transfer and further that the Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection and that the Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration. In this regard we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa Rani (supra) as follows:- "37. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration. 12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of M. Sheshagiri Rao (supra) as under:- "41. It is also not open the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration. 12. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of M. Sheshagiri Rao (supra) as under:- "41. It is no doubt true that service rules, however, meticulously framed, there is always a chance of some hardship being caused to a particular section of the employees, but as long as the rules are just, fair and reasonable, even if two views are possible, the mere fact that some hardship, inconvenience or injustice results to some members of the service, is not a ground to strike down the rule. It is not safe to test the constitutionality of a service rule on the touchstone of fortunes of an individual. If the rule otherwise appears to be fair, just and reasonable and does not suffer from the vice of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or any constitutional guarantee, the mere fact that some little hardship or injustice is caused to someone, is no ground to strike down the rule altogether." 13. When the facts of the instant case are tested in the light of the law laid down in the case of Pushpa Rani (supra) and M. Sheshagiri Rao (supra) what we find is that the respondents have fixed the quota/ratio by taking into consideration the total number of officers in the feeding cadre in respective discipline i.e. Passengers/Goods Tax Officer, Regional Inspector (Technical) and Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport) who had completed five years substantive service and thus arrived at the quota of 24:25:01 for filling in 68 post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Ordinary Scale) by promotion which translates to 33 posts going in the quota of Passengers/Goods Tax Officer, 34 posts going in the quota of Regional Inspector (Technical) and one post going to Assistant Prosecuting Officer (Transport). The said quota/ratio having been arrived at in a justifiable manner and taking into consideration the total number of eligible employees, the said calculation thus appears to be valid and not ultra vires the Constitution of India. 14. The said quota/ratio having been arrived at in a justifiable manner and taking into consideration the total number of eligible employees, the said calculation thus appears to be valid and not ultra vires the Constitution of India. 14. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the fixation of the said quota violates fundamental and constitutional rights as he would be having lesser chance of promotion is also patently misconceived taking into consideration the fact that Assured Career Progression Scheme has been introduced by the Government for this very purpose i.e. for removal of stagnation and for grant of higher financial benefit to the stagnating employees and hence the grievance of the petitioner would also stand redressed by grant of benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme as and when the petitioner becomes eligible for the same. 15. As regards the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner, the judgment in the case of A Satyanarayana (supra) would not be applicable inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case held that any policy whereby all promotional avenues to be promoted in respect of a category of employees for all times to come cannot be nullified. In the said case power of the State to fix the quota keeping in view the fact situation obtaining in a given case was conceded but at the same time it was held that the same cannot be violative of the constitutional scheme or equality as contemplated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The same is not a case here inasmuch as a quota has been prescribed for all the officers in the feeding cadre including the petitioner i.e. the Assistant Prosecution Officer (Transport) and the promotional avenue for the Assistant Prosecution Officers has not been nullified. 16. Similarly the case of Ram Gopal Shukla (supra) would also have no application in the facts of the instant case inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case was considering the rule which contemplated that unless a list of selected candidates was exhausted, other eligible candidates were not to be considered for promotion which thus deprived other persons the opportunity of being considered for promotion, which is not the case here. 17. 17. As regard the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of K.T. Plantation Private Limited (supra) and Goa Glass Fibre Limited (supra), the same pertain to the challenge being raised to a legislation passed by the Parliament and the grounds on which the same could be challenged. There is no dispute that a legislation can also be challenged on the grounds already crystalised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 18. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh and others (supra) is concerned, the same would also have no application as the same pertains to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to "catch-up rule" of seniority i.e. when a general category promoted earlier caught up with the reserved category candidate on the promotional post, his erstwhile seniority would be restored back. 19. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, we uphold the vires of the Rule 5 of the 2016 Amendment and accordingly the consequential prayer for quashing of requisition dated May, 2016 and consideration of promotion of the petitioner without implementing the amended Rule 5 of the 2016 Amendment, also falls. 20. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.