ORDER : Rajnish Kumar, J. 1. Heard, Shri Vijay Kumar Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the opposite party no.2 by means of which order of promotion of the petitioners on the post of Accountant dated 05.07.2012 has been cancelled. 3. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to the opposite party to allow the petitioners to continue to work and discharge their duties on the post of Accountant and pay them salary and other allowances each and every month and not to create any hindrance in the peaceful working and functioning of the petitioners on the post of Accountant in pursuance of the impugned order dated 10.01.2013. 4. The facts, in brief for adjudication of the controversy in hand, are that the petitioner no.1 was initially appointed as Assistant Accountant after following the due procedure in accordance with law on 28.08.1989. The petitioner nos.2 and 3 were initially appointed as Assistant Accountant after following due process of law on 11.12.1995 and 30.06.2003 respectively. The Government vide order dated 10.10.2011 decided to delete the condition with regard to passing of first departmental examination for promotion to the post of Accountant and in pursuance thereof the same was deleted by means of the order dated 04.05.2012 with the consent of Finance Department. 5. The petitioners were considered for promotion and by means of the order dated 05.07.2012 they were promoted from the post of Assistant Accountant to the post of Accountant in the Pay Band-2 Rs.9300-34800 with Grade-Pay of Rs.4200/-. In pursuance thereof the petitioners joined on their respective posts of Accountant in the directorate on 05.07.2012 and they were allowed to work on the post of Accountant. The promotion order of the petitioners dated 05.07.2012 has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 10.01.2013 therefore the petitioners have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition challenging the same. 6. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were promoted on the post of Accountant in the Pay Band-2 Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4200/-from the post of Assistant Accountant by means of order dated 05.07.2012. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners had joined on the said post. Since then they were discharging their duties of the said post. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4200/-from the post of Assistant Accountant by means of order dated 05.07.2012. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners had joined on the said post. Since then they were discharging their duties of the said post. The respondents, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, cancelled the promotion of the petitioners by means of the order dated 10.01.2013 on the ground that in pursuance of the Government Order dated 19.06.2012 the proceedings of the selection/appointment would be made after calling the vacancies in different departments by the Internal Audit Directorate in an unified manner. It amounts to reversion, which could not have been done without affording opportunity to the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were promoted under the then existing rules, namely Uttar Pradesh Finance Department Internal Audit Directorate Accounts (Non Gazetted) Service Rules, 2006, after due consideration and recommendation by the Departmental Promotion Committee by the competent authority. The Government Order dated 19.06.2012 was issued for implementation of the decision taken on the recommendations in regard to Internal Audit Directorate under the directions of the Pay Committee, but unless the rules would have been amended or repealed, the promotion of the petitioners could not have been held to be invalid. He further submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid decision the rules came into existence on 07.11.2014, namely The Uttar Pradesh Government Department Subordinate Accounts Cadre (Non-gazetted) Service Rules, 2014. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Arjun Singh Rathore and others Vs. B. N. Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 605 and Dr. Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2001)5 Supreme Court Cases 482. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the Government Order dated 19.06.2012 was issued for creating a unified cadre and making selection/appointment accordingly. Therefore, the petitioners should not have been promoted by the Department as it was in the knowledge of the department that the rules are going to be amended. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.01.2013, cancelling the promotion of the petitioners, has rightly been passed. However he could not dispute that the petitioners were promoted under the then existing rules of 2006. 9. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.01.2013, cancelling the promotion of the petitioners, has rightly been passed. However he could not dispute that the petitioners were promoted under the then existing rules of 2006. 9. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The petitioners were promoted from the post of Assistant Accountant to the post of Accountant in the Pay Band-2 Rs.9300-34800 with Grade-Pay of Rs.4200/-by means of the order dated 05.07.2012. In pursuance thereof they joined on the promoted post on 05.07.2012. The promotion order of the petitioners has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 10.01.2013 without affording any opportunity to the petitioners. The promotion of the petitioners has been cancelled on the ground that in pursuance of the Government Order dated 19.06.2012, the proceedings of the selection / appointment would be made after calling the vacancies in different departments by the Internal Audit Directorate in an unified manner. 11. It is not disputed that the petitioners were promoted on the post of Accountant under the statutory rules namely Uttar Pradesh Finance Department Internal Audit Directorate Accounts (Non-gazetted) Service Rules, 2006 made in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 5 (2) provides the source of recruitment on the post of Accountant which is by Promotion through Committee from amongst substantively appointed Assistant Accountant who has completed three years of service as such and passed his departmental examination on the first day of year of recruitment. The condition regarding first departmental examination has been relaxed and deleted by the Government by means of the Government Order dated 04.05.2012 which is not disputed. Thereafter the petitioners were promoted by means of the order dated 05.07.2012. The promotion order dated 05.07.2012 has been cancelled by means of the order dated 10.01.2013. 12. The petitioners were promoted in accordance with law and the existing rules, therefore their promotion could not have been cancelled without affording opportunity to them so the impugned order dated 10.01.2013 is in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 10.01.2013 and cancelling the order of promotion of the petitioners dated 05.07.2012. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others; (2015) 8 SCC 519 , considered as to why it is necessary that before an adverse action is taken against a person he is to be given notice about the proposed action and be heard in the matter. The relevant paragraphs 19 to 24 are extracted below:- "19. What is the genesis behind this requirement? Why it is necessary that before an adverse action is taken against a person he is to be given notice about the proposed action and be heard in the matter? Why is it treated as inseparable and inextricable part of the doctrine of principles of natural justice? 20. Natural justice is an expression of English Common Law. Natural justice is not a single theory—it is a family of views. In one sense administering justice itself is treated as natural virtue and, therefore, a part of natural justice. It is also called “naturalist” approach to the phrase “natural justice” and is related to “moral naturalism”. Moral naturalism captures the essence of commonsense morality—that good and evil, right and wrong, are the real features of the natural world that human reason can comprehend. In this sense, it may comprehend virtue ethics and virtue jurisprudence in relation to justice as all these are attributes of natural justice. We are not addressing ourselves with this connotation of natural justice here. 21. In Common Law, the concept and doctrine of natural justice, particularly which is made applicable in the decision-making by judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, has assumed a different connotation. It is developed with this fundamental in mind that those whose duty is to decide, must act judicially. They must deal with the question referred both without bias and they must give (sic an opportunity) to each of the parties to adequately present the case made. It is perceived that the practice of aforesaid attributes in mind only would lead to doing justice. Since these attributes are treated as natural or fundamental, it is known as “natural justice”. The principles of natural justice developed over a period of time and which is still in vogue and valid even today are: (i) rule against bias i.e. nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa; and (ii) opportunity of being heard to the party concerned i.e.audi alteram partem. The principles of natural justice developed over a period of time and which is still in vogue and valid even today are: (i) rule against bias i.e. nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa; and (ii) opportunity of being heard to the party concerned i.e.audi alteram partem. These are known as principles of natural justice. To these principles a third principle is added, which is of recent origin. It is the duty to give reasons in support of decision, namely, passing of a “reasoned order”. 22. Though the aforesaid principles of natural justice are known to have their origin in Common Law, even in India the principle is prevalent from ancient times, which was even invoked in Kautilya's Arthasastra. This Court in Mohinder Singh Gillv. Chief Election Commr. [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851 ] explained the Indian origin of these principles in the following words: (SCC pp. 432-33, para 43) “43. Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular law where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation, administration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed of life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and shapes and, save where valid law excludes, it applies when people are affected by acts of authority. It is the hone [Ed.: The word “hone” is usually used as a verb, meaning “to sharpen”. Rarely, it is also used a noun, as here, meaning “whetstone”.] of healthy government, recognised from earliest times and not a mystic testament of Judge-made law. Indeed from the legendary days of Adam—and of Kautilya's Arthasastra—the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system.” 23. Aristotle, before the era of Christ, spoke of such principles calling it as universal law. Justinian in the fifth and sixth centuries AD called it “jura naturalia” i.e. natural law. 24. The principles have a sound jurisprudential basis. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system.” 23. Aristotle, before the era of Christ, spoke of such principles calling it as universal law. Justinian in the fifth and sixth centuries AD called it “jura naturalia” i.e. natural law. 24. The principles have a sound jurisprudential basis. Since the function of the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities is to secure justice with fairness, these principles provide a great humanising factor intended to invest law with fairness to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. The principles are extended even to those who have to take an administrative decision and who are not necessarily discharging judicial or quasi-judicial functions. They are a kind of code of fair administrative procedure. In this context, procedure is not a matter of secondary importance as it is only by procedural fairness shown in the decision-making that a decision becomes acceptable. In its proper sense, thus, natural justice would mean the natural sense of what is right and wrong." 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and Others; (2009) 14 SCC 690 , held that the action cancelling the promotion had civil consequences therefore the respondents are under obligation to take decision by adhering to the rules of natural justice. The relevant paragraphs 11 to 13 are extracted below:- "11. The decision complained against in the instant case is an administrative decision. The decision is likely to have far reaching civil consequences for the appellant, as it has adversely affected his right to continue in the promotional post. Therefore, in our view, the decision concerning the promotion makes itself available for scrutiny by the courts on the touchstone of well-established principles of natural justice. The decision that was questioned before the Court was an administrative decision having civil consequences and is alleged to have been taken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 12. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, basically is that, the administrative decision taken by the respondents is unfair, unreasonable and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The administrative decision taken by the respondents is within the realm of public law and therefore, the decision ought to have been taken in a fair and reasonable manner. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, basically is that, the administrative decision taken by the respondents is unfair, unreasonable and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The administrative decision taken by the respondents is within the realm of public law and therefore, the decision ought to have been taken in a fair and reasonable manner. This was more necessary because the action cancelling the promotion of the appellant had civil consequences in the sense that it not only puts an end to the right of the appellant and also his further career prospects. Therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to take all decisions in a fair and lawful manner by adhering to the rules of natural justice. 13. The law in this regard has been settled by several decisions of this Court. The principle that emerge from the decisions of this Court is that, if there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and that the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made." 15. The promotion of the petitioners has been cancelled on the ground that the Government Order dated 19.06.2012 has been issued according to which the proceedings of selection / appointment would be made after calling the vacancies in different departments by the Internal Audit Directorate in an unified manner. 16. The Government Order dated 19.06.2012 provides that the proceedings of appointment and transfer on the post of Assistant Accountant, Accountant and Assistant Account Officer etc available in accounts of cadre of different departments would be made in a unified manner by the Internal Audit Directorate and the allotment of the selected candidates would be made as per requirement of the concerned department. It was further provided that the programme be made for strengthening / constitution of the Internal Audit Directorate effectively and the name of the department would be changed in future as Internal Accounts and Audit Directorate. Accordingly a direction was issued to the Director, Internal Audit Directorate for taking action in accordance with the Government Order dated 28.11.2011. It was further provided that the programme be made for strengthening / constitution of the Internal Audit Directorate effectively and the name of the department would be changed in future as Internal Accounts and Audit Directorate. Accordingly a direction was issued to the Director, Internal Audit Directorate for taking action in accordance with the Government Order dated 28.11.2011. The Government Order dated 28.11.2011 was issued in regard to implementation of the decisions taken in regard to the recommendation regarding Internal Audit Directorate under the 10th report (part-6) of Pay Committee (2008) under the Finance Department. In the last paragraph of the said Government Order it was mentioned that the necessary Government Order be issued with the consent of the Finance Department. 17. Admittedly in pursuance of above decision, the new rules namely "The Uttar Pradesh Government Department Subordinate Accounts Cadre (Non-gazetted) Service Rules, 2014" have been promulgated and issued vide notification dated 07.11.2014. 18. An information given under the Right to Information Act by the Finance Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 20.05.2013 contained in Annexure No.7 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners at serial no.3 admits that the the Uttar Pradesh Finance Department Internal Audit Directorate Accounts (Non-gazetted) Service Rules, 2006 have not been repealed. 19. The petitioners have filed another information dated 22.07.2014 given by the Finance Department under Right to Information Act in which, at serial no.9, it has been admitted that since the unified service rules have not been promulgated so the service matters of the accounts cadre would be discharged in accordance with the concerned service rules. It has also been admitted in the said information that since the unified service rules have not been promulgated therefore the concerned department can promote the employees in accordance with the concerned service rules. 20. It is a settled proposition of law that unless the rules governing the services of an employee are amended or repealed, the same would be applicable. Even if the rules are amended or repealed, the vacancies are to be filled by promotion under the rules which were in operation on the date on which the vacancy had occurred. 21. In the case of Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. Even if the rules are amended or repealed, the vacancies are to be filled by promotion under the rules which were in operation on the date on which the vacancy had occurred. 21. In the case of Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao; (1983) 3 SCC 284 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the rules would be governed by the original rules and not by the amended rules. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh Rathore and Others Vs. B.N. Chaturvedi and Others; (2007) 11 SCC 605 , has held as under in paragraphs 5 and 6. "5. Mr Calla, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has argued that the matter was fully covered by the judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal [ (1997) 10 SCC 419 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1631] wherein it had been held that the vacancies to be filled by promotion were to be filed under the rules which were in operation on the date when the vacancies had occurred. Relying on and referring to an earlier judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao [ (1983) 3 SCC 284 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 382] it was opined as under: (SCC p. 422, para 8) “8. … This Court has specifically laid (sic) that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not by the amended Rules. Accordingly, this Court had held that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not the amended Rules. As a necessary corollary, the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled in in accordance with the law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose.” 6. The above legal position has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for Respondents 6 and 7. We are therefore of the opinion that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the enforcement of the Rules of 1998 had to be filled in under the Rules of 1988 and as per the procedure laid down therein. We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge needs to be restored. We order accordingly." 23. We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge needs to be restored. We order accordingly." 23. In view of above the promotion of the petitioners can not be faulted in any manner as they had been promoted by means of the order dated 05.07.2012 in accordance with the Rules 2006 existing at that time. Merely because a decision was taken by the Government to adopt some other mode of selection the promotion of the petitioners can not be cancelled. It is also pertinent to note that in the rules notified on 07.11.2014 also the source of recruitment on the post of Accountant is by promotion through Departmental Selection Committee from the post of Assistant Accountants on completion of three years of service. 24. The impugned order dated 10.01.2013 has been passed on the basis of a Government Order dated 19.06.2012 cancelling the promotion of the petitioners which was made in accordance with the existing rules. It could not have been done because no Government Order, notification or circular can be a substitute to the statutory rules framed with the authority of law under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 25. This view is fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others; (2001) 5 SCC 482 . The relevant paragraph 7 is extracted below:- "7. The settled position of law is that no government order, notification or circular can be a substitute of the statutory rules framed with the authority of law. Following any other course would be disastrous inasmuch as it would deprive the security of tenure and right of equality conferred upon the civil servants under the constitutional scheme. It would be negating the so far accepted service jurisprudence. We are of the firm view that the High Court was not justified in observing that even without the amendment of the Rules, Class II of the service can be treated as Class I only by way of notification. Following such a course in effect amounts to amending the rules by a government order and ignoring the mandate of Article 309 of the Constitution." 26. Following such a course in effect amounts to amending the rules by a government order and ignoring the mandate of Article 309 of the Constitution." 26. In view of above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the promotion of the petitioners on the post of Accountant, by means of the order dated 05.07.2012, had been made in accordance with the then existing statutory rules which could not have been cancelled on the basis of a Government Order that too without affording any opportunity to the petitioners. Therefore the impugned order dated 10.01.2013 is not sustainable at all in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed. 27. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e the Director, Internal Audit Directorate, Lucknow is hereby quashed. The petitioners are held entitled for all consequential benefits of service. However it will not preclude the opposite parties from passing a fresh order in accordance with law, if required. 28. No order as to costs.