JUDGMENT : Ravikumar, J. This Original Petition is filed against the order dated 31.5.2018 in O.A.No.2289 of 2016 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners herein were respondents 3 to 5 in the said O.A which was moved by respondents 1 and 2 herein. In the Original Application respondents 1 and 2 herein/applicants sought for the following reliefs:- a. To declare that after coming in to force of Annexure-A2 Special Rules, Annexure A1 Special Rules cannot be considered for any purposes. b. To declare that respondents 3 to 5 are not entitled to get promotion to the post of Range Forest Officers on the basis of AnnexureA1 Special Rules. c. To direct the 1st respondent to take a decision on Annexure-A5 representation. 2. The petitioners herein resisted the claims and contentions by filing a reply statement. The third respondent herein had also filed a reply statement. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions, arrived at the conclusion that the appellants had succeeded in establishing that the petitioners herein/respondents 3 to 5 were not entitled to claim the vacancies occurred when Annexure-A1 Rules were in force and therefore, not at all entitled to make any preferential claim after the coming into force of Annexure-A2. Consequently, the Tribunal declared that respondents 3 to 5 are not entitled to be promoted as Range Forest Officers in terms of Annexure-A1 Special Rules. It is on being aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.2018 that the captioned Original Petition is filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. Certain basic facts are not in dispute. Annexure-A1 Rules were substituted by Annexure-A2 Rules. Under Annexure-A1 Rules conditions which were to be satisfied for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer are, possession of first rank in Foresters Training and 10 years' service in the Department of which 5 years should be in the post of Forester. Respondents 3 to 5/petitioners herein obtained first rank in Foresters Training but at the same time, the admitted fact is that as on the date of occurrence of vacancies in question they were not having 10 years' service in the Department, as provided under AnnexureA1, to earn eligibility for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer, thereunder. So also, they could not acquire the said prescribed period of service till Annexure-A2 Rules substitute Annexure-A1 Rules. So also, they could not acquire the said prescribed period of service till Annexure-A2 Rules substitute Annexure-A1 Rules. Based on the said admitted facts that the Tribunal considered the question of entitlement of the petitioners to stake claim for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer in terms of Annexure-A1 Rules after the coming into force of Annexure-A2 Special Rules. It is not in dispute that three posts of Forest Range Officers were lying vacant when Annexure-A2 Rules came to be introduced. Therefore, essentially the question is whether against those vacancies occurred in the post of Range Forest Officer while Annexure-A1 Rules were in vogue and remaining vacant when Annexure-A2 Rules are introduced, the petitioners are entitled to stake a claim for promotion. We have already taken note of the qualifications/conditions which were to be satisfied for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer under Annexure-A1 Rules. The petitioners did not have a case that they did possess the qualifications of 10 years' service in the Department, as prescribed under Annexure-A1, at the time when the vacancies arose or even thereafter till Annexure-A1 Rules got substituted by Annexure-A2 Rules. Therefore, essentially, the question is whether, mere occurrence of vacancies while Annexure-A1 Rules were in vogue would enable the petitioners to stake claim for promotion when the admitted position is that they were lacking the prescribed qualification of 10 years' service in the Department as prescribed under Annexure-A1 Rules, on the date of occurrence of vacancies and further till the coming into force of Annexure-A2 Rules. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Deepak Aggarwal v. State of U.P (2011(2) KLT S.N.31) (Case No.41), the Tribunal held that vacancies existing prior to an amendment of a Rule could be filled up in accordance with the pre-amended Rules. But then, it held that since the petitioners herein/respondents 3 to 5 therein had not qualified to be promoted under Annexure-A1 Rules as aforesaid, after coming into force AnnexureA2 Rules, they could not, as a matter of right claim for promotion based on Annexure-A1 Rules. In other words, though they are having first rank in Foresters Training, owing to the lack of the requisite period of service, which is also a condition for promotion, they cannot be heard to contend that they were fully qualified for promotion when Annexure-A1 Rules were in vogue. In other words, though they are having first rank in Foresters Training, owing to the lack of the requisite period of service, which is also a condition for promotion, they cannot be heard to contend that they were fully qualified for promotion when Annexure-A1 Rules were in vogue. The position is that they could not acquire the qualification regarding the requisite period of service while Annexure-A1 Rules were in force or till it got substituted by Annexure-A2 Rules. In short, being persons not fully qualified when Annexure-A1 rules were in force they are not entitled to claim consideration against such vacancies after its substitution by Annexure-A2 Rules and the decision in Deepak Aggarwal's case would be inapplicable to such unqualified persons. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to hold that the Tribunal had gone wrong in arriving at a conclusion based on the indisputable and undisputed facts, as referred above. According to us, the Tribunal had only arrived at a rightful conclusion in the aforesaid factual position obtained in this case. When that be so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in the above Original Application. In the circumstances, this Original Petition must fail and consequently, it is dismissed.