JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. These petitions involve common question of facts and law, hence, are taken up together for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, the factual position arising out of CWPOA No. 51 of 2019 (O.A. No. 3547 of 2016) has been considered hereinafter. 2. Whether the corrigendum dated 08.09.1988 issued under administrative power can legally substitute certain provisions of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Group Instructors notified under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India on 15.10.1987 and published in the official Gazette on 06.06.1989, is the main question involved in all these petitions. 3. Following relevant facts are not in dispute:- 3(i). Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Group Instructors in the respondent-Department of Technical Education, called as 'Himachal Pradesh, Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training Department, Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1987 (in short 'R&P Rules'), were framed by the respondents in exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, vide notification dated 15.10.1987. 3(ii). Column No. 10 of the R&P Rules provides for filling up 75% of vacancies by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. Under Column No. 11 of these rules, amongst other categories, Craft Instructors with five years of service as such are eligible for promotion to the posts of Group Instructors. 3(iii). Column No. 7 of the R&P Rules prescribed following minimum educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment to the posts of Group Instructors:- "Essential i) Matric with Science & Math from recognized University/Board or equivalent. ii) Three years Diploma in Engg. From a recognized State Board or Technical Education or equivalent. iii) Two years experience in an Industrial Training Institution and or in a reputed industrial concern. Desirable: Knowledge of customs and manner and dialects of H.P. suitability for appointment in peculiar condition prevailing in the Pradesh." As per Column No. 8 of these rules, the educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment are also required to be possessed by promotees. Column No. 8 is extracted hereinafter:- 8 Whether age and Educational qualifications prescribed for direct will apply in the case of the promotees. Are ………. Qualification …….. No Yes 3(iv). The above mentioned R&P Rules for the post of Group Instructors were notified on 15.10.1987. Column No. 8 is extracted hereinafter:- 8 Whether age and Educational qualifications prescribed for direct will apply in the case of the promotees. Are ………. Qualification …….. No Yes 3(iv). The above mentioned R&P Rules for the post of Group Instructors were notified on 15.10.1987. This notification (Annexure A-3) provided in Clause 1(ii) that "These shall come into force from the date of publication in the Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh." The rules were actually published in the Rajpatra on 06.06.1989. 3(v). On 08.09.1988, the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary issued following corrigendum, substituting the word 'Yes' with the word 'No' in Column No. 8 of the R&P Rules for the post of Group Instructors:- "No. STV(TE)B(2)4/85-II-Please substitute the word 'yes' with the word 'No' in column No. 8 in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Group Instructor/Foreman/Milwright Foreman/Hd q. Surveyor/Superintendent (Tech.) (Authoritative English text) in the Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training Department, notified vide this Department notification No. STV (TE)B(2)4/85-II, dated the 14th October, 1987." The above corrigendum was published in the Rajpatra on 24.09.1988. 4. Petitioners were appointed as Craft Instructors in the respondent-Department on different dates and were confirmed as such. Further channel of promotion available to them is to the posts of Group Instructors under 75% quota meant for promotion as laid out in R&P Rules. Original Application No. 3547 of 2016 was instituted by the petitioners before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal with the grievance that the respondents are not adhering to the R&P Rules in making promotions to the posts of Group Instructors. It was alleged that those who are ineligible for promotion in terms of Column No. 8 of the R&P Rules are being considered by the respondents as eligible by illegally treating the corrigendum dated 08.09.1988 having been incorporated in the R&P Rules. The corrigendum issued prior to the publication of the rules cannot be read into the R&P Rules, which were published later and did not incorporate the contents of the corrigendum. Right of consideration for promotion available to the petitioners under the R&P Rules for the posts of Group Instructors was being marred, therefore, the petitions were preferred praying for direction to the State to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Group Instructors from the due date strictly on the basis of R&P Rules in question. Right of consideration for promotion available to the petitioners under the R&P Rules for the posts of Group Instructors was being marred, therefore, the petitions were preferred praying for direction to the State to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Group Instructors from the due date strictly on the basis of R&P Rules in question. The aforesaid original application alongwith other connected original applications and execution petitions, on abolition of the erstwhile Tribunal, have been transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOAs and Execution Petitions. 5. Contentions 5(i). The case as set up by the petitioners is that they are eligible for promotion to the post of Group Instructors in terms of the R&P Rules thereof. The respondents are required to make promotions to the posts of Group Instructors strictly in consonance with the R&P rules notified on 15.10.1987 and published in the Rajpatra on 06.06.1989. It is further the contention of the petitioners that the corrigendum dated 08.09.1988, substituting the word 'Yes' with the word 'No' in Column No. 8 of the R&P Rules, was issued when the R&P Rules were not published in the official Gazette, hence, the corrigendum has no force of law and cannot be taken into consideration while effecting promotions of Craft Instructors to the posts of Group Instructors. 5(ii). Learned Advocate General as well as learned counsel appearing for the private respondents have not disputed the fact that at the time of issuance of corrigendum dated 08.09.1988 as well as at the time of its publication in the official Gazette on 24.09.1988, the R&P Rules for the post of Group Instructors had not been published in the Rajpatra. It is also admitted that the R&P Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the post of Group Instructors were actually published in the Rajpatra only on 06.06.1989. The defence taken by learned counsel appearing for private respondents is that the R&P Rules shall come into force from the date of notification, i.e. 15.10.1987. Another contention raised on behalf of the State is that corrigendum in question preceded publication of R&P Rules, therefore, it has to be treated as part of the rules. It has to be deemed to be incorporated in the rules after publication of the same. Another contention raised on behalf of the State is that corrigendum in question preceded publication of R&P Rules, therefore, it has to be treated as part of the rules. It has to be deemed to be incorporated in the rules after publication of the same. Further, it has been submitted that the State has been making promotions to the posts of Group Instructors by reading the corrigendum as part of the R&P Rules. Therefore, the action of the respondents-State in treating the corrigendum as part of R&P Rules cannot be held as illegal in a petition filed in 2016. 6. On the basis of the admitted factual position and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, following main points arise for adjudication:- (a). Whether the R&P Rules in question framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, will come into force from the date of their notification, i.e. 15.10.1987 or from the date of their publication in the official Gazette, i.e. 06.06.1989; (b). Whether the corrigendum, issued and published in Rajpatra prior to the publication of R&P Rules, substituting certain words in Column No. 8 thereof, can be read into the R&P Rules; and (c). Whether provisions of R&P rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India can be substituted by way of corrigendum issued by an Executive Authority. 7. Date of Enforcement of R&P Rules 7(i) In the instant case, admittedly, the R&P rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, though were notified on 15.10.1987, but were actually published in the official Gazette on 06.06.1989. 7(ii). Rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India is a legislative act, though made by the executives (refer paras 11 & 18 of (2011) 14 SCC 739 , titled CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others Versus Mishri Lal and others). Hon'ble Apex Court in Harla v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1951 SC 467 , held that publication or promulgation of law is necessary to make it operative. Relevant portion from paras 8 and 13 is extracted below:- "8......................... Hon'ble Apex Court in Harla v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1951 SC 467 , held that publication or promulgation of law is necessary to make it operative. Relevant portion from paras 8 and 13 is extracted below:- "8......................... In the absence of any special law or custom, we are of opinion that it would be against the principles of natural justice to permit the subjects of a State to be punished or penalised by laws of which they had no knowledge and of which they could not even with the exercise of reasonable diligence have acquired any knowledge. Natural justice requires that before a law can become operative it must be promulgated or published. It must be broadcast in some recognisable way so that all men may know what it is; or, at the very least, there must be some special rule or regulation or customary channel by or through which such knowledge can be acquired with the exercise of due and reasonable diligence. The thought that a decision reached in the secret recesses of a chamber to which the public have no access and to which even their accredited representatives have no access and of which they can normally know nothing, can nevertheless affect their lives, liberty and property by the mere passing of a Resolution without anything more is abhorrent to civilised man. It shocks his conscience. In the absence therefore of any law, rule, regulation or custom, we hold that a law cannot come into being in this way. Promulgation or publication of some reasonable sort is essential. 13.......................... We hold that, in the absence of some specific law or custom to the contrary, a mere resolution of a Council of Ministers in the Jaipur State without further publication or promulgation would not be sufficient to make a law operative." In State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722 , publication in the official Gazette was held to be the ordinary method of bringing a rule/subordinate legislation to the notice of concerned persons. Relevant portion of para 45 of this judgment is as under:- "45.................................................... Relevant portion of para 45 of this judgment is as under:- "45.................................................... Where there is a statutory requirement as to the mode or form of publication and they are such that, in the circumstances, the Court holds to be mandatory, a failure to comply with those requirements might result in there being no effective order the contravention of which could be the subject of prosecution but where there is no statutory requirement we conceive the rule to be that it is necessary that it should be published in the usual form i.e., by publication within the country in such media as generally adopted to notify to all the persons concerned the making of rules. In most of the Indian statutes, including the Act now under consideration, there is provision for the rules made being published in the Official Gazette. It therefore stands to reason that publication in the Official Gazette viz., the Gazette of India is the ordinary method of bringing a rule or subordinate legislation to the notice of the persons concerned." In B.K. Srinivasan and others Versus State of Karnataka and others, (1987) 1 SCC 658 (Para 15), it has been held that subordinate legislation in order to take effect must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner irrespective of such prescription in the parent statute. If no mode of publication/promulgation is prescribed, then it will take effect only from the date of its publication in the customarily recognized official channel, i.e. the official Gazette. Para 15 of the judgment is as under:- "15. There can be no doubt about the proposition that where a law, whether Parliamentary or subordinate, demands compliance, those that are governed must be notified directly and reliably of the law and all changes and additions made to it by various processes. Whether law is viewed from the standpoint of the 'conscientious good man' seeking to abide by the law or from the standpoint of Justice Holmes's 'Unconscientious bad man' seeking to avoid the law, law must be known, that is to say, it must be so made that it can be known. We know that delegated or subordinate legislation is all-pervasive and that there is hardly any field of activity where governance by delegated or subordinate legislative powers is not as important if not more important, than governance by Parliamentary legislation. We know that delegated or subordinate legislation is all-pervasive and that there is hardly any field of activity where governance by delegated or subordinate legislative powers is not as important if not more important, than governance by Parliamentary legislation. But unlike Parliamentary Legislation which is publicly made, delegated or subordinate legislation is often made, unobtrusively in the chambers of a Minister, a Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary. It is, therefore, necessary that subordinate legislation, in order to take effect, must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication. There may be subordinate legislation which is concerned with a few individuals or is confined to small local areas. In such cases publication or promulgation by other means may be sufficient." Harla's case, supra, as well as B.K. Srinivasan's case, supra, were considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Versus Anil Shantaram Khoje and others, (2016) 15 SCC 726, holding that publication in the official Gazette was a mandatory requirement as it is from the date of publication, a statute comes into force. Paras 8 to 12 to the judgment are reproduced below:- 8. The opinion of the High Court is that the publication in the Official Gazette was not mandatory, but only desirable or directory. A plethora of precedents prevails on this vexed question which continues to exhaust judicial time. 9. Paras 8 to 12 to the judgment are reproduced below:- 8. The opinion of the High Court is that the publication in the Official Gazette was not mandatory, but only desirable or directory. A plethora of precedents prevails on this vexed question which continues to exhaust judicial time. 9. In Harla v. State of Rajasthan the Court's conscience appears to have been shocked by the "thought that a decision reached in the secret recesses of a chamber to which the public have no access and to which even their accredited representatives have no access and of which they can normally know nothing, can nevertheless affect their lives, liberty and property by the mere passing of a Resolution without anything more is abhorrent to civilised man." (AIR p. 468, para 8) However, what this Court was confronted with in that case was the failure of the publication of the Jaipur Opium Act, which led to the conviction of the petitioner. It can certainly be argued that imposition of criminal liability is not akin to provisions determining the eligibility for promotions. 10. In B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka this Court was concerned with the Outline Development Plan and Regulations pertaining to the construction of high-rise buildings in one of the residential extensions of Bangalore. This Court observed that it is necessary that subordinate legislation, in order to take effect, must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, regardless of whether the statutes so prescribed, the subordinate legislation would then take effect only from the date of publication. However, a caveat was articulated to the effect that where subordinate legislation is concerned only with a few individuals or is confined to small local areas, publication or promulgation by other means may meet the mandates of law. 11. In I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards v. Mandal Revenue Officer the question was whether the petitioner assessee could claim the exemption from payment of tax on non-agricultural land assessment by virtue of one GOM issued by the Government, but which had not been published or notified at the relevant point of time in the Official Gazette. 11. In I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards v. Mandal Revenue Officer the question was whether the petitioner assessee could claim the exemption from payment of tax on non-agricultural land assessment by virtue of one GOM issued by the Government, but which had not been published or notified at the relevant point of time in the Official Gazette. This Court declined to grant the benefits of the exemption to the assessee holding that that provision would have to be implemented only when finality attached to it which would be contemporaneous to its publication in the Official Gazette; that the dissemination of the substance of the exemption in the newspapers or in other media was irrelevant. Reference was made to Section 83 of the Evidence Act. The Court did not agree that such publication was only a directory requirement and accordingly a dispensable one and reiterated the observations earlier made in Sammbhu Nath Jha v. Kedar Prasad Sinha, which is to the effect that publication in the Official Gazette "is an imperative requirement and cannot be dispensed with." This view further finds adoption in S.K. Shukla v. State of U.P., wherein the Court was concerned with unauthorized possession of arms and ammunitions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. It was observed by this Court that the notification notifying the State of U.P. as a notified area, thereby prohibiting and criminalizing possession of certain arms in the notified area under Section 4(a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, would become effective from the date of its publication and reasserted that publication is essential as it affects the rights of the public. 12. Rajendra Agricultural University v. Ashok Kumar Prasad, is directly relevant to the conundrum before us inasmuch as it pertains to promotions in the university, in contradistinction to criminal culpability. Even in those circumstances, this Court had opined that publication in the Official Gazette was a mandatory requirement, although the Statute in question providing for a time-bound promotion Scheme was assented to by the Chancellor, and pursuant to which a notification was also issued by the Petitioner University. The respondents made a failed attempt to distinguish a legislation imposing obligations or creating liabilities from those intended to benefit a specific and limited class of persons inasmuch as publication would be a mandatory requirement in the former case while directory in the latter. The respondents made a failed attempt to distinguish a legislation imposing obligations or creating liabilities from those intended to benefit a specific and limited class of persons inasmuch as publication would be a mandatory requirement in the former case while directory in the latter. The Court disagreeing with the proposition held that the fact that a particular Statute may not concern the general public, but may affect only a specified class of employees, is not a ground to exclude the applicability of the mandatory requirement of publication in the Official Gazette in the absence of any exception included in the Statute itself." 7(iii). Respondents-State itself has admitted this position in its pleadings of M.A. No. 1685 of 2018 in O.A. No. 3547 of 2016, while explaining its stand on the controversy, in following words:- ".............................................. The publication in the Gazette was significant as it is on the date of publication, the Rules were to come into force. Publication of Corrigendum prior to the publication of R&P Rules merely implies that R&P Rules notified in 1987 would stand corrected to the extent that in the column of qualification, the requisite qualification of Diploma shall not be applicable to Promotees. The publication of corrigendum prior in point of time merely implies that corrigendum operates to correct an error in the main R&P Rules. In case main R&P Rules were published subsequently, as in the present case, it would merely imply that corrigendum would be deemed to be applicable immediately after the actual publication of R&P Rules." In view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court vis-a-vis the admitted and pleaded factual position of the instant case, we hold that the R&P Rules for the posts of Group Instructors, came into force w.e.f. 06.06.1989, i.e. the date of their publication in the official Gazette and not earlier. 8. Substitution of provisions in R&P Rules by corrigendum 8(i). Since the R&P Rules in question came into force w.e.f. 06.06.1989, therefore, there was no question of substitution of any provision thereof prior to 06.06.1989. The corrigendum issued on 08.09.1988 and published in the official Gazette on 24.09.1988, was for substituting certain provisions of the then non-existent R&P Rules. This corrigendum, therefore, cannot be read into the R&P Rules published later on 06.06.1989. 8(ii). The corrigendum issued on 08.09.1988 and published in the official Gazette on 24.09.1988, was for substituting certain provisions of the then non-existent R&P Rules. This corrigendum, therefore, cannot be read into the R&P Rules published later on 06.06.1989. 8(ii). It is not the case of the respondents that R&P Rules published on 06.06.1989 had incorporated the changes sought under previously issued corrigendum. It is also not the case of the respondents that after the publication of R&P Rules for the posts of Group Instructors on 06.06.1989, any amendment in accordance with law was carried out by the respondents for substitution of the words in Column No. 8 of the R&P Rules. 9. Substitution of provisions of R&P Rules by Executive Authority 9(i). The R&P Rules were notified in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and were accordingly published as such in the official Gazette on 06.06.1989. Whereas, the corrigendum was issued by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary on 08.09.1988 and was published in the official Gazette on 24.09.1988. 9(ii). Taking note of AIR 1967 SC 1910 , titled Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhananjay Malik and others Versus State of Uttaranchal and others, (2008) 4 SCC 171 , held that the words/provisions contained in R&P Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India can be incorporated/deleted/substituted only by way of amendments carried out in accordance with law and not by way of administrative instructions. Paragraphs 12, 14 and 15 of the judgment are as under:- "12. The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Government can, by way of administrative instructions, fill up the gaps and supplement the Rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the Rules already framed, if Rules are silent on any particular point? 14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, has pointed out at AIR p. 1914 that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. 15. 15. The aforesaid ruling has been reiterated in para 9 of the judgment by a three-judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. K.P. Joseph as under: (SCC p. 196) "9. Generally speaking, an administrative order confers no justiciable right, but this rule, like all other general rules, is subject to exceptions. This Court has held in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan that although Government cannot supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, yet, if the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed and these instructions will govern the conditions of service." It is not the case of the parties here that the R&P Rules were silent on qualifications required for promotion to the post of Group Instructor and, therefore, executive instruction was necessitated. Rather, by way of corrigendum, the Executive Authority had desired to change and substitute an existing provision in the R&P Rules relating to qualifications required for promotion to the post of Group Instructor. In State of Haryana v. Shamsher Jang Shukla, AIR 1972 SC 1546 , Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with a question as to whether the government was competent to add by means of administrative instructions to the qualifications prescribed under rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Taking note of Sant Ram Sharma's case, supra, it was observed as under vide relevant portion of para 7:- "7............................................ Undoubtedly the instructions issued by the Government add to those qualifications. By adding to the qualifications already prescribed by the rules, the Government has really altered the existing conditions of service. The instructions issued by the Government undoubtedly affect the promotion of concerned officials and therefore they relate to their conditions of service. The Government is not competent to alter the rules framed under Art. 309 by means of administrative instructions. We are unable to agree with the contention of the State that by issuing the instructions in question, the Government had merely filled up a gap in the rules. The rules can be implemented without any difficulty. We see no gap in the rules." 9(iii). We are unable to agree with the contention of the State that by issuing the instructions in question, the Government had merely filled up a gap in the rules. The rules can be implemented without any difficulty. We see no gap in the rules." 9(iii). Any substitution of qualifications in Column No. 8 of R&P Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India will require proper amendment of the rules. It is not the case of the respondents that any amendment to the R&P Rules as envisaged in law was ever carried out by them. In fact, during hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice a communication dated 03.12.2016, addressed by the Under Secretary (TE) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, admitting the errors in the issuance of corrigendum and its inapplicability in effecting promotions to the post of Group Instructors in following words:- "I am directed to refer to your letter No. STV(IT)H-B(2)5/R&P/2015-82523 dated 02.09.2016 and to say that "Corrigendum" bearing No. STV(TE)-B-(2)4/85-II dated 08-09-1988 is not applicable to the existing R&P Rule dated 15.10.1987 on the basis of the facts that i) R&P Rules requires "Amendments" to incorporate/delete/substitute the provisions and not "Corrigendum". Hence major amendment in "essential qualification" cannot be considered applicable through "corrigendum". ii) Corrigendum dated 08.09.1988 was published in Rajpatra on 24-09-1988 whereas R&P rules bearing Notification No. STV(TE)B(2)4/85-II dated 15-10-1987 came into force w.e.f. 06-06-1989 i.e. from date of publication in Rajpatra. Therefore, applicability of corrigendum does not sustain as no such R&P Rules were in force on the date of issuance of corrigendum. iii) Corrigendum dated 08-09-1988 substituting the word 'yes' with the word 'No' in Col No. 8 of the Notification No. STV(TE)B(2)4/85-II dated "14-10-1987" which clearly established that no "Amendments" carried out to the R&P Rules notified vide Notification No. STV(TE)B(2)4/85-II dated "15-10-1987" at that time. Therefore, you are requested to file compliance affidavit to OA No. 3547/2016 and also file reply to OA No. 5094/2016 accordingly. Therefore, you are requested to file compliance affidavit to OA No. 3547/2016 and also file reply to OA No. 5094/2016 accordingly. You are further requested to process the matter accordingly and consider the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Group Instructor(s) on the basis of existing R&P Rules dated 15.10.1987 after completion all the codal formalities and requisite reviews in advance in this regard." Thus, corrigendum dated 08.09.1988 issued by the Executive Authority cannot alter or substitute the provisions of R&P Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Past actions, if any, of the respondent-State in reading the corrigendum into the R&P Rules will not give licence to it to perpetuate the illegality. 10. We may also take note of an ancillary objection raised by the respondents that the petition was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitions are not barred by limitation and do not suffer from any delay and latches. Having become eligible for promotion to the post of Group Instructors, the petitioners, serving as Craft Instructors, were within their right to prefer the instant petitions in 2016 seeking enforcement of R&P Rules, as otherwise, the respondents were in the process of ignoring their claims and were about to effect promotions by ignoring the sanctity of R&P Rules and considering the corrigendum as part of the R&P Rules. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners as cause of action can be said to have accrued to them only when they would attain eligibility for promotion to the post of Group Instructors. Thus, the instant petitions cannot be said to be suffering from delay and latches or barred by limitation. The respondents-State has itself pleaded in para 3 of its reply filed to the original application that ".......................................... In view of the available aforesaid vacancies of Group Instructors, the Replying Respondent started the process of the Promotion of the Applicant's category i.e. Craft Instructors to the aforesaid 34 posts of the Group Instructors in October 2015 and it was observed that the available final Seniority list circulated in the year 2007 vide letter dated 04/01/2007 had been exhausted.............." Further in CMP(T) No. 121 of 2019, pleadings of the State are to the effect that ".................................... it is respectfully submitted that presently out of total 85 nos. it is respectfully submitted that presently out of total 85 nos. of posts of Group Instructor for promotion category 52 no. of posts are vacant since the date of last DPC held for the post of Group Instructor i.e. 30/12/2014........................." 11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that:- (i). Corrigendum dated 08.09.1988 issued by an Executive Authority cannot substitute the provisions contained in the R&P Rules for the post of Group Instructors framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. (ii). Corrigendum dated 08.09.1988 published in the Rajpatra on 24.09.1988 cannot be read into the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Group Instructors, which were published in the Rajpatra later on 06.06.1989 without incorporating the contents of the corrigendum and which came into force from the date of their publication. These petitions are, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed not to consider the corrigendum dated 08.09.1988 as published in the official Gazette on 24.09.1988, for the purpose of making promotions to the post of Group Instructors. The promotions to the post of Group Instructors be made strictly in accordance with the R&P Rules. No other point was urged. With the aforesaid observations, the present petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.