JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Heard. Leave granted in Special Appeal No. 502 of 2015. 2. Since both these appeals are connected, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment. 3. Special Appeal No. 557 of 2015 is filed by the official respondents in the writ petition, whereas, the other appeal is filed with the leave of the Court. The writ petitioner sought the following relief’s: “I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.9.2013 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent no. 4. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith issue promotion order to the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (Music) pursuant to final selection made by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for the selection year 2008-09.” 4. Briefly put, the case of the writ petitioner was as follows: The writ petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher Music in the Education Department in the year 1998 and joined at Government Girls College Tharali, District Chamoli, Garhwal Mandal. In the year 2002, after her marriage, the writ petitioner availed her transfer in Mandal Level and was transferred to Kumaun Mandal and due to change of the Mandal, after her joining in Kumaun Mandal, her seniority was re-fixed in the year 2002 and she was placed at Sl. No. 3004. Since the year 2006, three posts of Lecturer Music are lying vacant in the District Nainital. Since the writ petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the Additional Director, Education, for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09, after the recommendation of the State, sent the name of the writ petitioner to the Public Service Commission. The three names, which were sent, included Deepti Pandey, Ekta Bisht and the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 3 in the said list. It is the case of the writ petitioner that Deepti Pandey was not promoted on the post of Lecturer Music, as she was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the said post and was consequently promoted as Lecturer in Geography and the other incumbent, namely, Ekta Bisht left the job and, therefore, the writ petitioner was the only candidate whose name was sent for promotion to the Commission for the selection years 2007-08 and 2008-09. When the name of the writ petitioner was recommended and sent for promotion to the Commission, no other teacher was fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Writ petitioner relies on the U.P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer’s Cadre) Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1992”), produced as Annexure No. 5 in the writ petition. Since the vacancy for the post in question was of 2007-08, due to this reason the Additional Director, Education sent the name of the writ petitioner in the years 2007-08 and 2008-09, apparently, along with the other candidates. In 2007-08, the Uttaranchal Promotion Rules were not in existence. After the year 2008, B.Ed. was made compulsory. Since the writ petitioner was recommended against the vacancy of 2007-08, as such, she was entitled to promotion according to the old Rules prevailing at the relevant time. There was grave inaction and she could not get promotion. In the year 2008, the Rules were amended and it is stated that the said amended Rules provide for promotion in women’s branch as 50% from the substantively appointed candidates by the Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service (Women Branch) or absorbed under 25% quota prescribed by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2006 on certain posts, which are mentioned; who were having the prescribed qualification, would become entitled for promotion. As per this amendment, the writ petitioner is alleged to have become junior, but the writ petitioner relies on the vacancy of 2007-08, for which her name was sent in 2007-08 and 2008-09. There was grave inaction and it is on this basis that the writ petitioner approached this Court. 5. Pleadings were exchanged and the learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, has proceeded to take the following view: In the year 2006, three posts had fallen vacant, so along with Deepti Pandey and Ekta Bisht name of the writ petitioner was recommended by the Additional Director, Education for promotion. The recommendation was sent to the Public Service Commission. It was further held as follows: “Unfortunately, by the time the Commission could return after putting its affirmative seal on such recommendation, the new Rules for promotion from L.T. Grade to the Lecturer, came into effect since 30.1.2008. As per those Rules, the requirement of holding B.Ed. degree for promotion on the post of Lecturer was indispensable. So, the Department declined to promote the petitioner. As per those Rules, the requirement of holding B.Ed. degree for promotion on the post of Lecturer was indispensable. So, the Department declined to promote the petitioner. There is yet another significant factor that the Rules, contemplating B.Ed. degree as an essential component for promotion to the post of Lecturer, were made otiose in the year 2010 and thereafter also, five years have further elapsed but the petitioner is waiting her promotion. The Court finds that when the petitioner’s name was recommended for promotion as against the vacancy of 2006 to the Commission, and on account of laches and procedural delay of office of Commission, such recommendations could not get affirmative seal within time, then the blame cannot be attached to the candidate and he/she cannot be left to suffer on this score. Pursuant to the recommendations, as approved by the Commission vis-à-vis the deletion of Rules requiring B.Ed. degree as an essential element for promotion, the Court allows the petition instantly and directs the respondents to promote the petitioner Smt. Rashmi Parihar on the post of Lecturer forthwith. A writ of certiorari is also issued quashing the impugned order dated 20.9.2013 whereby the representation of petitioner was rejected by the authority concerned. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for any retrospective financial benefits. However, since the petitioner has suffered, for no fault of her own, the concerned respondent is further enjoined to re-fix her seniority with effect from the date when the affirmative seal of the Commission reached to its office.” 6. Aggrieved by this judgment, the official respondents and the others are before us. 7. We have heard Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the appellants in Special Appeal No. 557 of 2015 and on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in Special Appeal No. 502 of 2015, Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants in Special Appeal No. 502 of 2015 and Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner. 8. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel would submit that though the writ petitioner’s name was sent along with two others by requisition dated 30.03.2010 to the Public Service Commission, in the requisition it was wrongly shown that the writ petitioner was in possession of B.Ed. The Public Service Commission rejected the requisition as the writ petitioner did not possess B.Ed. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel would submit that though the writ petitioner’s name was sent along with two others by requisition dated 30.03.2010 to the Public Service Commission, in the requisition it was wrongly shown that the writ petitioner was in possession of B.Ed. The Public Service Commission rejected the requisition as the writ petitioner did not possess B.Ed. The Rules, earlier in force, were the Rules of 1992. On 30.01.2008, new Rules came into force, namely, the Uttarakhand Special Subordinate Education (Lecturer’s Cadre) Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2008). As per the Rules of 2008 itself, the qualification prescribed included possession of B.Ed. The writ petitioner did not possess B.Ed. The name of the writ petitioner was sent by mistake as she was shown having B.Ed. It is further submitted that after the requisition was sent on 30.03.2010, the following developments took place: A requisition was sent in the year 2011 to the Public Service Commission. In the same, the names which were sent were of Kusum Naithani, who was placed at Sl. No. 1976 of the seniority list, Geeta Sharma, who was placed at Sl. No. 2413 of the seniority list, Krishna Devi, who was placed at Sl. No. 2501 of the seniority list and finally there was Sangeeta Sharma, who was placed at Sl. No. 2502 of the seniority list. The Public Service Commission recommended the name of Kusum Naithani and Geeta Sharma but they did not join. In regard to the two posts to be filled up by promotion, again requisition was sent in the year 2011. The names of the persons included in the said list were Krishna Devi, who was placed at Sl. No. 2501 of the seniority list, Sangeeta Sharma, who was placed at Sl. No. 2502 of the seniority list, Shradha Rawat, who was placed at Sl. No. 2684 of the seniority list, who, it may be noted, is the first appellant in Special Appeal No. 502 of 2015 and, lastly, Sudha Mamgain, who was placed at Sl. No. 2747 of the seniority list, who, it may be noted, is the second appellant in Special Appeal No. 502 of 2017. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that Public Service Commission recommended names of Krishna Devi and Sangeeta Sharma. No. 2747 of the seniority list, who, it may be noted, is the second appellant in Special Appeal No. 502 of 2017. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that Public Service Commission recommended names of Krishna Devi and Sangeeta Sharma. Their names were recommended and on the basis of the recommendation, they were given appointment and they joined as Lecturer Music. Lastly, to complete the narrative, learned Standing Counsel points out that in June, 2015, names of five persons have been sent for one vacant post of Lecturer Music. It included the names of the first, second and the third appellant in Special Appeal No. 502 of 2015, who were placed at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3, respectively in the said list, Jaya Pandey was placed at Sl. No. 4 in the said list and Rashmi Parihar, the present writ petitioner, was placed at Sl. No. 5. Jaya Pandey is shown at Sl. No. 2910 of the seniority list and the writ petitioner is shown at Sl. No. 3004. It is pointed out that this requisition is pending consideration on account of litigation and no decision has been taken. 9. It is pointed out by Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that Usha Katiyar, the third appellant in Special Appeal No. 502 of 2015, is stated to be junior to the writ petitioner in an affidavit filed by the Director, which is produced at page nos. 55 and 56 of the writ petition paper book. But, the learned Standing Counsel would point out that going by the Serial Number, the writ petitioner is at Sl. No. 3004 of the seniority list and Usha Katiyar is at a higher Serial Number in the seniority list. The writ petitioner filed a representation and that was rejected. In the impugned order, inter alia, there is reference to the qualifications and also there is reference to the writ petitioner not being eligible in terms of the seniority. 10. Before we proceed to consider the facts, we must appreciate the background in terms of the Rules, which held the field. Originally, the parties in this case were governed by the Rules of 1992. Rule 5 provides for the source of recruitment. 10. Before we proceed to consider the facts, we must appreciate the background in terms of the Rules, which held the field. Originally, the parties in this case were governed by the Rules of 1992. Rule 5 provides for the source of recruitment. Under the head Lecturers-women’s Branch, it is provided that 50 per cent was to be filled up by direct recruitment through the Commission; 50 per cent by promotion from amongst substantively appointed Subordinate Education Service L.T. Grade Teachers (Men’s Branch) who have completed five years service, as such, on the first day of the year of recruitment and who possess the requisite qualification prescribed for the post under Rule 8. The word “Commission” has been defined in Section 3(c) as Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission. Part IV of the Rules deals with the procedure of recruitment. Rule 14 deals with the determination of vacancies. Rule 15 deals with the procedure for direct recruitment; the applications for being considered for selection by direct recruitment were to be called for by the Commission, as we have described and the procedure which is to be followed. Rule 16 provided for the Procedure of Recruitment by Promotion. It provides as follows: 16. Procedure for recruitment by promotion.—(1) Recruitment by promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority, subject to the rejection of unfit through a Selection Committee comprising : (i) Additional Director of Education (Secondary), Uttar Pradesh, (ii) Additional Director of Education (Hills), Uttar Pradesh, (iii) Additional Director of Education (Women), Uttar Pradesh, (iv) Additional Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh. Note.—The senior officer shall be the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Note.—The senior officer shall be the Chairman of the Selection Committee. (2) The appointing authority shall prepare eligibility list of the candidates in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Eligibility List Rules, 1986, and place the same before the Selection Committee along with their character-rolls and such other record pertaining to them as may be considered proper : Provided that while preparing eligibility lists under this sub-rule, where there are two different feeding cadres : (a) bearing different pay scales, the candidates belonging to the cadre bearing higher pay scale shall be placed higher in the eligibility lists; (b) bearing the same pay scale the names of the candidates shall be arranged in the eligibility lists in order or the date of their substantive appointment in their respective cadres. (3) The Selection Committee shall consider the cases of the candidates on the basis of records, referred to in sub-rule (2). (4) The Selection Committee shall prepare lists of selected candidates arranged in order of seniority as it stood in the cadre from which they are to be promoted and forward the same to the appointing authority. Coming to the qualifications prescribed under the Rules of 1992 for the post in question, we find the same at Sl. No. 13 of Appendix ‘B’. The same provides as follows: “13. Lecturer, Music (Vocal) (Women’s Branch): A post-graduate degree in music or a graduate degree with music (vocal) and L.T. Diploma or a Bachelor’s Degree in Education from a Government or recognised training college or a University established by Law in India with specialisation in music. Or A post-graduate degree of a University established by Law in India and Sangeet Visharad (vocal) from Morris College, Lucknow. Sangeet Prabhakar (vocal) from Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad or Senior Diploma in Music (vocal) from the University of Allahabad. Or Snatak Degree, degree of Sangeet Nipun from Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapeeth, Lucknow or Sangeet Praveen from Prayag Sangeet Samiti, Allahabad. Or A degree or qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. 11. It be noted that unlike in the Rules of 1992, the word “Commission” has been described as meaning ‘Uttarakhand Public Service Commission’ in Section 3(c) of the Rules of 2008. Thus, it is for the first time that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission came into the picture. Or A degree or qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. 11. It be noted that unlike in the Rules of 1992, the word “Commission” has been described as meaning ‘Uttarakhand Public Service Commission’ in Section 3(c) of the Rules of 2008. Thus, it is for the first time that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission came into the picture. Coming to the qualifications prescribed under the Rules of 2008 for the post in question, we find the same at Sl. No. 11 of Appendix ‘A’. For Lecturer, Music (Vocal) (Women’s Branch) the qualifications are as follows: (1) A Post-Graduate degree in Music (Vocal) of a University established by law in India. (2) L.T. Diploma of a Government or Government recognized training college/college or graduate degree in education (B.Ed.) from a University established by law. 12. Lastly, on 31st December, 2010, an amendment was carried out to the Rules of 2008, as per which the qualification of B.Ed. was deleted. The first thing we must appreciate is what were the qualifications, which were prescribed in the Rules of 1992? The Rules of 1992 appears to provide, inter alia, for several qualifications to entitle a person to be considered for the post of Lecturer in Music (Vocal) in the women’s branch. The first set of qualifications is Post Graduate degree in Music. A person, who is a graduate with Music (Vocal) and L.T. diploma, is also qualified. Lastly, a graduate with Music (Vocal) who has Bachelor’s degree in Education from a Government or recognized training college or University established by law in India with specialization in music was also rendered eligible. Besides the same, as we have noted, by use of the word ‘or’ various other qualifications have also been included, including a degree or qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. In other words, a post graduate in Music by itself was declared eligible, whereas, a graduate in Music would be eligible if he had L.T. diploma or B.Ed. with specialization in music. 13. A change was brought out in the year 2008 w.e.f. 30.01.2008. As per the same, in order to become eligible, a person must be a post-graduate in Music (Vocal) and also he/she must have either L.T. Diploma or a Graduate degree in Education (B.Ed.) from a University established by law. with specialization in music. 13. A change was brought out in the year 2008 w.e.f. 30.01.2008. As per the same, in order to become eligible, a person must be a post-graduate in Music (Vocal) and also he/she must have either L.T. Diploma or a Graduate degree in Education (B.Ed.) from a University established by law. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner has neither L.T. diploma nor is she a B.Ed. She is a post-graduate in Music. Therefore, though it is true that there were three vacancies existing, the name of the writ petitioner was sent initially. It is said to be done on 30.03.2010. At the time when the requisition was sent, it appears that the name of the writ petitioner was sent by mistake and under the impression that she is having B.Ed., as it was mentioned in the requisition. On 30.01.2008, the qualification of B.Ed. was made compulsory. Therefore, it appears that Public Service Commission has rejected the name of the writ petitioner. We have already noticed the subsequent development in the form of the requisition sent. Persons, who were, apparently, senior to the writ petitioner, namely, Kusum Naithani and Geeta Sharma were recommended, but they did not join. Krishna Devi and Sangeeta Sharma, who were included in the next requisition and who were placed at Sl. No. 2501 and 2502 were later recommended. They accepted the appointment by way of promotion. Subsequently, we have noticed the further development in the form of names of five persons including the writ petitioner being sent by the department to the Public Service Commission. 14. The fact that in regard to the post of Lecturer, B.Ed. has been done away with in the year 2010; and that another five years have elapsed cannot assist the writ petitioner, as we have noted that in the requisition sent in the year 2011, there were seniors to the writ petitioner, who were qualified as found by the Public Service Commission whose selections or promotions are not called in question. We do not find merit also in finding laches and procedural delay in the office of the Commission, having regard to the admitted fact that the writ petitioner did not possess B.Ed. Also, we cannot ignore the fact that there were seniors to the writ petitioner. 15. We do not find merit also in finding laches and procedural delay in the office of the Commission, having regard to the admitted fact that the writ petitioner did not possess B.Ed. Also, we cannot ignore the fact that there were seniors to the writ petitioner. 15. We must notice that the Public Service Commission came into picture only with the enactment of the Rules of 2008. It had no role under the Rules of 1992. When the name of the writ petitioner was sent along with two others in the year 2010 and the Public Service Commission was asked to discharge its function, it could have possibly done it only in terms of the Rules of 2008. Under the Rules of 2008, the Public Service Commission could not have possibly recommended the name of the writ petitioner for the reason that under the Rules of 2008, under which it is created, the possession of B.Ed. was compulsory. May be, under the earlier Rules of 1992, B.Ed. was not compulsory. 16. Secondly, we notice from the facts that even in the writ petition, the averment of the writ petitioner is that she is placed at Sl. No. 3004 of the seniority list. The persons who were being recommended in the requisition of 2011, namely, Krishna Devi and Sangeeta Sharma were placed at Sl. Nos. 2501 and 2502 respectively and their names have been recommended by the Public Service Commission and they have been promoted and they have joined. Their selection or promotion is not called in question in the writ petition and we cannot, possibly, sit in judgment over the same. The remaining one vacancy is the subject matter of the latest requisition made in the year 2015. We may notice in this regard that there is no provision in the State service in the Rules in question, which provides that title to promotion, must be decided with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancy. It may be true that there was a vacancy in the year 2006 or 2007. It may also be true that at that time possession of B.Ed. was not necessary; but the appellants in Special Appeal No. 502 of 2015 also would appear to be post-graduate in Music (Vocal). It may be true that there was a vacancy in the year 2006 or 2007. It may also be true that at that time possession of B.Ed. was not necessary; but the appellants in Special Appeal No. 502 of 2015 also would appear to be post-graduate in Music (Vocal). Though, the writ petitioner has a case that they did not have the qualification, as can be seen from certain entries in the seniority list, we do not intend to finally pronounce on it, in view of what we intend to do in regard to the requisition of the year 2015. The requisition having been sent in the year 2010, namely, on 30.03.2010, was done under a mistake in regard to the writ petitioner’s qualification and has been rejected by the Public Service Commission. We would think that the learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing the direction, as was done by the learned Single Judge, as we have already noticed there appears to have been persons, who were senior to the writ petitioner, as is evident from the case of Krishna Devi and Sangeeta Sharma being considered and recommended for promotion by the Public Service Commission also and promotion orders being issued in their favour. Therefore, we would think that the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 17. Finally, we take into consideration the fact that requisition in respect of the writ petitioner was sent by mistake and misunderstanding regarding her qualifications. Therefore, there is no basis for quashing the impugned order. 18. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge will stand set aside. We, however, make it clear that if the writ petitioner is aggrieved by her position in the requisition or against the inclusion of anyone in the requisition, it will be open for her to seek relief in the appropriate forum in regard to the same. 19. No order as to cost.