JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Writ-A No. 27362 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'WP-1') has been filed by seven petitioners, namely, Ram Tirath, Shailendra Kumar Awasthi, Subhash Chandra Shukla, Ravindra Singh, Sumit Kumar, Manoj Kumar Jaiswal and Raman Singh challenging validity of Schedule B Column 2 at Serial No. 5 relating to recruitment on the post of Junior Assistant/Copyist (Group-C post) of U.P. State District Court Service Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2013') as ultra vires, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners have also prayed for issue of writ of certiorari to quash order dated 27.05.2017 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by District Judge, Kannauj in compliance of Administrative Committee's resolution dated 16.11.2016, communicated by Court's letter dated 19.05.2017, reverting petitioners to Group D cadre from Group C. 2. Facts, in brief, as pleaded in WP-1 are that petitioners were appointed in Group D cadre in Judgeship Kannauj on 10.03.2005, 27.07.2005, 02.07.2002, 21.08.2003, 17.09.2005, 04.11.2004 and 04.11.2004 respectively. Earlier recruitment on the posts in ministerial cadre in Subordinate Courts in State of U.P. was governed by the provisions made in U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1947'). Similarly, recruitment and appointments to the posts in Group D Inferior services were governed by U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1955). In super session of aforesaid Rules and some others, a comprehensive set of Rules regulating recruitment and other conditions of service of various Group D and Group C posts in District Judgeships were made, i.e., Rules, 2013 published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 04.07.2013 and by virtue of Rule 1, it came into force from the date of publication in official gazette. 3. The posts, which were brought within the purview of Rules, 2013 are given by designations in Column 2 of Schedule A read with Rule 3 (2) of Rules, 2013. By virtue of Rule 3 (3) read with Schedule B Column 2, designations and categories of posts have been revised from the date of commencement of Rules, 2013 i.e. 04.07.2013. Chapter III deals with recruitment and contains Rules 4 to 18. Method of recruitment and qualification etc. are governed by Rule 4 read with Schedule B Columns 3 and 4 and procedure for appointment is provided in Rule 5. Chapter III deals with recruitment and contains Rules 4 to 18. Method of recruitment and qualification etc. are governed by Rule 4 read with Schedule B Columns 3 and 4 and procedure for appointment is provided in Rule 5. Both the Rules are reproduced as under:- “4. Method of recruitment, qualifications etc.--In respect of each category of posts of the service specified in column (2) of Schedule 'B', the method of recruitment and minimum qualification shall be as specified in the corresponding entries in columns (3) and (4) thereof. 5. Procedure of appointment. -Subject to the provisions of these rules, recruitment to any category of post in the service shall be made by the Selecting Authority.- (1) In the case of recruitment by direct recruitment, after giving wide publicity in at least two newspapers, one in Hindi and one in English of State level having wide circulation in that district concerned. (2) In the case of recruitment by promotion, by the Selecting Authority on the basis of criteria laid down in Schedule 'B' subject to fitness of the candidate to discharge the duties of the post, from among the persons eligible for promotion.” (emphasis added) 4. Rule 9 provides further procedure for direct recruitment which consists of written examination and interview and thereafter list of selected candidates is to be prepared as per Rule 12. Rule 13 provides the manner in which appointments are to be made. Rule 14 talks of duration of operation of select list prepared under Rule 12. Rules 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are reproduced as under:- “9. Direct Recruitment:-(1) The Appointing Authority shall intimate the Selecting Authority in the month of July every year the number of vacancies existing and likely to occur during the year of recruitment for direct recruitment in different category of posts. The Selecting Authority shall invite applications by giving vide publicity indicating the total number of vacancies notified for recruitment and the number of vacancies reserved for different reserved categories. (2) The Selecting Authority may short-list the candidates to be called for the written examination equal to twenty five times the number of vacancies notified on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination given in Schedule 'B' or by a preliminary objective test. (2) The Selecting Authority may short-list the candidates to be called for the written examination equal to twenty five times the number of vacancies notified on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination given in Schedule 'B' or by a preliminary objective test. (3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these Rules, the Appointing Authority and the Selecting Authority with regard to conduct of examination and selection shall act in accordance with general or special orders issued by Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court, from time to time. 10. Eligibility of candidates for the interview-(1) For the purpose of selection of the candidates for the interview, the appointing authority shall prepare a list of names of candidates on the basis of percentage of the total marks secured in the written examination in the order of merit and if two or more candidates have secured equal percentage of total marks in the written examination, the order of merit in respect of such candidates shall be fixed on the basis of their age, the person or persons older in age being placed higher in order of merit. From among the candidates whose names are included in such list, as far as may be, such number of candidates as is equal to five times the number of vacancies notified, selected in the order of merit, shall be eligible for the interview: (2) For the purpose of this rule,-‘Written examination’ means the competitive examination held by the Selecting Authority as per syllabus given in Schedule 'C'. 11. Interview.--Selecting Authority shall interview the eligible candidates selected under Rule 10 and award marks on the basis of their performance in the interview. The object of such interview is to assess the suitability of the candidates for appointment to the cadre or the post applied for by them and their calibre including intellectual and social traits of personality. 12. 11. Interview.--Selecting Authority shall interview the eligible candidates selected under Rule 10 and award marks on the basis of their performance in the interview. The object of such interview is to assess the suitability of the candidates for appointment to the cadre or the post applied for by them and their calibre including intellectual and social traits of personality. 12. List of Selected candidates.-(1) The Selecting Authority shall on the basis of the aggregate of the percentage of the total marks secured in the written examination as determined under Rule 10 and of the marks secured at the interview under Rule 11 and taking into consideration the orders in force relating to reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and others prepare in the order of merit a list of the candidates eligible for appointment to the category of post and if the aggregate of the percentage of total marks secured in the written examinations as determined under Rule 10, and of the marks secured at the interview under Rule 11, of two or more candidates is equal, the order of merit in respect of such candidates shall be fixed on the basis of their age, the person or persons older in age being placed higher in the order of merit. The number of names of the candidates to be included in such list shall be equal to the number of the vacancies notified for the recruitment. (2) The Selecting Authority shall in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1) also prepare an additional list of names of the candidates not included in the list prepared under sub-rule (1) in which the number of candidates to be included shall, as far as possible, be ten percent of the number of vacancies notified. (3) The lists so prepared under sub-rule (1) and (2) shall be pasted on the notice board of the Judgeship on the same day on which interview is held or on the next working day and a copy of the same shall be forwarded to the High Court. 13. (3) The lists so prepared under sub-rule (1) and (2) shall be pasted on the notice board of the Judgeship on the same day on which interview is held or on the next working day and a copy of the same shall be forwarded to the High Court. 13. Appointment of candidates.-(1) Subject to Rules 15 and 16 candidates whose names are included in the list prepared under sub-rule (1) and published under sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 may be appointed by the appointing authority in the vacancies in the particular cadre in the order in which the names are found in the list after satisfying itself, after such inquiry as may be considered necessary that each such candidate is suitable in all respects for appointment to a post in the cadre. Candidates whose names are included in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) and published under sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 may be similarly appointed after the candidates whose names are included in the list prepared under sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 have been appointed. (2) The inclusion of the name of a candidate in any list published under Rule 12, shall not confer any right of appointment. 14. Duration of operation of the lists.-The list of names of the candidates published by the Selecting Authority under Rule 12 in respect of any cadre shall cease to be operative on appointment of the last advertised vacancy or one year whichever is earlier.” (emphasis added) 5. District Judge, Kannauj sent a letter dated 22.02.2016 with reference to Government Orders dated 01.01.1970, 31.08.1982 and 03.09.1995 dealing with subject of promotion of Group D employees to Group C, informing that there are total 117 Group C sanctioned posts, where against 103 employees are working and therefore, 14 posts of Junior Assistants are vacant; 23 vacancies of Group C comes within the quota of promotion from Group D to Group C where against 16 Group D employees after promotion are working, therefore, seven vacancies for promotion in Group D to Group C are available, hence, he sought permission of this Court to fill in those seven vacancies of Group C by promotion from Group D employees. Vide letter dated 30.03.2016 sent by Joint Registrar (Judicial), permission was granted with reference to Government Order dated 03.09.1995. 6. Vide letter dated 30.03.2016 sent by Joint Registrar (Judicial), permission was granted with reference to Government Order dated 03.09.1995. 6. For making promotion of Group D employees to Group C in accordance with Government Order dated 03.09.1995, District Judge constituted a Committee which published notice dated 31.03.2016 inviting applications from Group D employees of District Judgeship Kannauj who have completed five years of continuous service, possess educational qualification upto High School or Intermediate or equivalent thereto and conversant with typing. Procedure for selection comprised of written test, evaluation of character rolls and interview. 7. In the aforesaid selection, all the petitioners were declared successful and selected whereupon, vide order dated 08.04.2016, District Judge, Kannauj promoted them in Group C posts and placed them on probation for two years with reference to Rule 19 Chapter IV of Rules, 2013. 8. All the petitioners joined pursuant to promotion order dated 08.04.2016, started working on their respective Group C post and were getting salary. Petitioners were also sent for computer training programme pursuant to this Court's order dated 03.11.2016 to Judicial Training and Research Institute, U.P., Lucknow where they completed their training. 9. All of sudden, District Judge, Kannauj passed impugned order dated 27.05.2017 cancelling petitioners' promotion and reverting them to Group D post. Aforesaid order has been challenged on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and Article 311 of Constitution of India as no enquiry has been conducted. 10. It is further stated by petitioners that earlier recruitment and appointment to Group C was governed by Rules, 1947. For promotion from Group D to Group C first, a Government Order was issued on 01.01.1970. This Government Order providing promotion of Group D employees to Group C was adopted and made applicable to Subordinate Courts, vide High Court's Circular dated 05.02.1973. Though under Rules, 2013, no such promotion of Group D employees to Group C has been recognized but in absence of anything to show that Government Orders providing promotion of Group D employees to Group C are superseded, the said Government Orders must be deemed to have continued in force despite enforcement of Rules, 2013. Relying on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. Relying on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (1) AWC 239 , it is said that manner in which promotions are made from Group D to Group C has been clearly stated in para 33 of said Judgment, which reads as under:- “33. The menace of such illegal and arbitrary selection for whatever reasons has acquired alarming proportion and has almost continued unabated. Therefore, it requires to be dealt with an iron hand forthwith. Conscious of the fact that we are not supposed to legislate, but in order to control the malady of such unlawful selection at least in subordinate judiciary, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, we consider it suitable in the fitness of things to lay down the following guidelines to facilitate fair selection by supplementing the Rules in the area in which they are silent. 1. A selection committee of three persons headed by the District Judge concerned and two senior most judicial officers of the judgeship be constituted in every judgeship. 2. First of all, every year all class -III posts within the promotional quota from amongst the class -IV employees be filled up and the process in this regard be completed latest by 31st December every year 3. Thereafter, all the vacancies of class -III and class -IV posts in each judgeship, as far as possible, may be advertised in a district level newspaper in the month of January/February every year so that the selection process is completed by 31st of March every year. 4. The selection process should be based upon a written test of maximum 75 marks to test the workable knowledge of Hindi followed by an interview of maximum 25 marks. 5. On the basis of merit in written test candidates to a maximum of thrice the number of vacancies advertised to be filled up, should ordinarily be called for interview. 6. A combined merit list on the basis of the marks obtained in written test and interview should be drawn along with a waiting list of equal number of candidates as the vacancy advertised and then the selection be made from the said merit list. ” (emphasis added) 11. 6. A combined merit list on the basis of the marks obtained in written test and interview should be drawn along with a waiting list of equal number of candidates as the vacancy advertised and then the selection be made from the said merit list. ” (emphasis added) 11. Petitioners further have averred that Group C vacancies on which petitioners were selected occurred much before the enforcement of Rules, 2013 and, therefore, have to be filled in accordance with procedure as it was prior to enforcement of Rules, 2013 and, for this proposition reliance is placed on Y.V. Rangaiah and others Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others, (1983) 3 SCC 284 . In any case, promotions having been made after permission granted by this Court, it cannot be said that promotions were bad. 12. Challenging validity of Rules, 2013, which provided only direct recruitment as a source of recruitment to the posts of Junior Assistant/Copiest (Group C post), it is contended that right of Group D employees for promotion, which permits promotional avenues to them has been defeated by aforesaid Rules, 2013 after almost four decades without rhyme and reason and denial of promotion to Group D to Group C, therefore, is patently arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of Constitution. It is further stated that Rules, 2013 have now been amended by U.P. State District Court Services (First Amendment) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Amendment Rules 2017') published in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 21.06.2017. By virtue of Rule 1 (ii) of Amendment Rules, 2017, the amendment has come into force from the date of publication in official gazette. Rules 4, 5 and 12 of Rules, 2013 quoted above are amended by Amendment Rules, 2017 and the amended provisions are reproduced as under:- “4. Method of recruitment, qualifications etc.--In respect of each category of posts of the service specified in column (2) of Schedule 'B', the method of recruitment and minimum qualification shall be as specified in the corresponding entries in columns (3) and (4) thereof.” “5. Procedure of appointment. Method of recruitment, qualifications etc.--In respect of each category of posts of the service specified in column (2) of Schedule 'B', the method of recruitment and minimum qualification shall be as specified in the corresponding entries in columns (3) and (4) thereof.” “5. Procedure of appointment. -Subject to the provisions of these rules, recruitment to any category of post in the service shall be made by the Selecting Authority.- (1) In the case of recruitment by direct recruitment, after giving wide publicity in at least two daily newspapers, one in Hindi and one in English of State level having wide circulation in that district and also in Employment news and other like publication and also on the website of the High Court. In addition to it the names may be requisitioned from local Employment Exchange. The advertisement apart from other necessary particulars shall also specify in clear terms, the number of posts available for selection and recruitment, the qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts and the Rules under which the selection and recruitment is to be made. (2) In the case of recruitment by promotion, by the Selecting Authority on the basis of criteria laid down in Schedule 'B' subject to fitness of the candidate to discharge the duties of the post, from among the persons eligible for promotion.” “12. List of Selected candidates.-(1) The Selecting Authority shall on the basis of the aggregate of the percentage of the total marks secured in the written examination as determined under Rule 10 and of the marks secured at the interview under Rule 11 and taking into consideration the orders in force relating to reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and others prepare in the order of merit a list of the candidates eligible for appointment to the category of post and if the aggregate of the percentage of total marks secured in the written examinations as determined under Rule 10, and of the marks secured at the interview under Rule 11, of two or more candidates is equal, the order of merit in respect of such candidates shall be fixed on the basis of their age, the person or persons older in age being placed higher in the order of merit. The number of names of the candidates to be included in such list shall be equal to the number of the vacancies notified for the recruitment. (2) The Selecting Authority shall in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1) also prepare an additional list of names of the candidates not included in the list prepared under sub-rule (1) in which the number of candidates to be included shall, as far as possible, be ten percent of the number of vacancies notified. (3) The lists so prepared under sub-rule (1) and (2) shall be pasted on the notice board of the Judgeship on the same day on which interview is held or on the next working day and a copy of the same shall be forwarded to the High Court.” (emphasis added) 13. Schedule B Serial No. 5 Column 2 has also been substituted by Amendment Rules, 2017 and substituted provision reads as under:- “(a) Eighty percent by direct recruitment by holding competitive test. (b) Twenty percent by promotion from amongst Group “D” employees on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit with minimum of five years substantive and satisfactory service having qualification upto High School: Provided that the post of Amin Grade-II shall be filled only by the direct recruitment.” (emphasis added) 14. It is contended that by way of amendment, now 20 per cent vacancies in Group 'C' are made available for promotion to Group D employees, therefore, result is that this promotion quota stands denied to Group D employees only for the period when Rules, 2013 were implemented, i.e., from 04.07.2013 till Amendment Rules, 2017 came into force, i.e., 21.06.2017. Denial of promotion to Group D employees only for this period of about four years i.e., 04.07.2013 to 20.06.2017, on account of faulty drafting of Rules, 2013 wherein right of promotion of Group D employees was excluded without any rhyme and reason, is patently discriminatory and arbitrary. It is further stated that while Rules, 2013 were being framed, this flaw was noticed and Court made correspondence for making proper correction but Rules, 2013 were published and State took four years in rectifying the mistake without any logic or rationale, therefore, denial of promotion for a limited period, that too, for the fault/ mistake committed in draft of Rules, 2013 is illegal. Petitioners and similarly placed other Group D employees cannot be made to suffer, hence, denial of promotion to petitioners during 04.07.2013 to 20.06.2017, under Rules, 2013, is patently arbitrary and discriminatory. 15. Contesting WP-1, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 2, 3 and 4 sworn by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Additional District Judge, FTC-I, Kannauj. It is not disputed that petitioners were appointed on various posts in Group D in District Judgeship Kannauj and also confirmed thereon on various dates. The promotions of petitioners from Group D to Group C by District Judge Kannauj are also not disputed. However, it is submitted that under Rules, 2013, there was only one source of recruitment to Group C i.e. direct recruitment. Till amendment made on 21.06.2017, Rules, 2013 did not provide any promotion of Group D to Group C, hence, promotion of petitioners during that period was patently illegal being de hors Rules, 2013. Therefore, order passed by the District Judge, pursuant to resolution dated 16.11.2016 of Administrative Committee is in conformity of Rules, 2013, as they stood on the date when petitioners were promoted illegally, is correct and in accordance with law. The impugned order is not an order of demotion or reversal as such but promotions having been made illegally, the same have been cancelled and, therefore, Article 311 of the Constitution has no application. The amendment made in Rules, 2013 is prospective, hence, petitioners cannot claim any benefit thereof. So long as Rules govern the field, reliance placed on Government Orders is misplaced as Government Orders being executive in nature cannot prevail over statutory rules. 16. We find that no reply has been given by respondents 2, 3 and 4 to the averments made in paragraphs 19A to 19W of the writ petition, which have been inserted after allowing amendment application on 17.07.2019. 17. Writ-A No. 40115 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'WP-2') relates to District Judgeship Baghpat wherein petitioners were initially appointed as Group D employees and subsequently promoted in Group C under Rules, 2013 and the said promotion order has been cancelled as there was no provision for promotion of Group D to Group C under Rules, 2013 prior to its amendment made by Amendment Rules, 2017. WP-2 is filed by three petitioners, namely, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Navin Kumar Gupta and Ritesh Kumar Singh, who were appointed in Group D cadre on 22.04.2000, 22.04.2000 and 20.11.2006 respectively. Here also District Judge, Baghpat sought permission of this Court for filling Group C vacancies within promotion quota of Group D as per Government Order dated 03.09.1995 and the same was allowed by Court's letter dated 09.04.2015 sent by Joint Registrar (Judicial). District Judge, Baghpat, vide order dated 20.04.2015 constituted Selection Commitee for promotion of Group D employees to Group C with reference to Government Orders dated 01.01.1970, 31.08.1982 and 03.09.1995. Petitioners and one Krishna Gopal Mishra were declared successful, hence, District Judge, Baghpat issued order dated 06.10.2015 promoting them in Group C and placing on two years probation under Rules, 2013. This Court thereafter issued letter dated 25.01.2017 observing that some promotions have been made in Group 'C' from Group 'D' though there is no provision for such promotion under Rules, 2013 and, therefore, steps for cancellation of promotion should be taken. Pursuant thereto, order dated 31.01.2017 was issued to petitioners requiring them to show cause, why their promotion be not cancelled which was replied by petitioners, vide letter dated 06.02.2017. Ultimately, vide order dated 24.08.2017 (Annexure 13 to WP-2), promotions of petitioners were cancelled and consequential order was issued on 25.08.2017 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition). In all other respect, the submissions advanced in WP-2 are similar to WP-1, hence, we are not adding the pleadings to avoid repetition. 18. Writ-A No. 7663 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'WP-3') also relatesto District Baghpat and there are four petitioners, namely, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Navin Kumar Gupta, Krishna Gopal Mishra and Ritesh Kumar Singh. It is similar to WP-2, with only difference that in this writ petition show cause notice dated 31.01.2017 as also this Court's letter dated 25.01.2017 has been challenged. In respect of all other aspects, it is similar to WP-2, hence, we are avoiding repetition. 19. Writ-A No.5123 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “WP-4”) relates to District Sant Ravidas Nagar-Bhadohi at Gyanpur. It has been filed by eight petitioners, namely, Anis Ahmad, Jitendra Singh, Suresh Tripathi, Himanshu Srivastava, Virendra Kumar, Ram Kailash, Shyam Lal and Manager Ram, who were all initially appointed as Group D employees on 20.12.2005, 23.12.2005, 24.05.2000, 29.10.2005, 12.05.1997, 09.01.1997, 05.06.2006 and 27.01.2005 respectively. It has been filed by eight petitioners, namely, Anis Ahmad, Jitendra Singh, Suresh Tripathi, Himanshu Srivastava, Virendra Kumar, Ram Kailash, Shyam Lal and Manager Ram, who were all initially appointed as Group D employees on 20.12.2005, 23.12.2005, 24.05.2000, 29.10.2005, 12.05.1997, 09.01.1997, 05.06.2006 and 27.01.2005 respectively. Pursuant to letter dated 05.10.2016 issued by In-charge, Registrar General directing all District Judges to fill in Group C vacancies which comes within the promotion quota of Group D, District Judge, Bhadohi, vide letter dated 07.10.2016 constituted a Selection Committee. As per District Judge's letter dated 07.10.2016, there were total 114 sanctioned posts in Group C including Stenographer. There against promotion quota for Group D employees being 20 per cent came to 29 posts. 14 Group D employees after promotion were working in Group C and, thus, there were 15 vacancies in Group C which could have been filled in by promotion of Group D employees. For filling these 15 vacancies, selection was held but only 10 persons could be selected out of which eight were given promotion vide order dated 18.10.2016. Subsequent to High Court's letter dated 25.01.2017 observing that there was no provision for promotion in Rules, 2013, promotions have been cancelled, vide order dated 28.01.2017. In all other respect grounds raised in WP-4 are similar to earlier writ petitions, i.e., WP-1, 2 and 3, hence, we are not referring to further pleadings to avoid repetition. 20. In these writ petitions, certain facts which are undisputed may be summarized as under:- (I) In Rules, 1947, there was no provision providing promotion of Group D employees to Group C. For the first time, a Government Order was issued on 01.01.1970, which was amended from time to time. The said Government Order made provision for promotion of Group D employees to Group C. Initially 15 per cent quota was provided for those, who had passed High School and worked five years continuously. This quota was subsequently increased to 20 per cent by providing 5 per cent to those who possess qualification of Intermediate. (II) High Court adopted Government Order dated 01.01.1970 by circular dated 05.02.1973 and that is how, promotions have been made in District Judgeship, till enforcement of Rules, 2013. (III) Rules, 2013 have superseded all earlier Rules inconsistent to it and provided only direct recruitment on Group C posts of Junior Assistant. (II) High Court adopted Government Order dated 01.01.1970 by circular dated 05.02.1973 and that is how, promotions have been made in District Judgeship, till enforcement of Rules, 2013. (III) Rules, 2013 have superseded all earlier Rules inconsistent to it and provided only direct recruitment on Group C posts of Junior Assistant. (IV) In 2016, when Registry issued general circular directing District Judges to fill in promotion quota in Group C from Group D employees, it clearly omitted to notice that under Rules, 2013, no promotion of Group D employees to Group C was contemplated and only direct recruitment was provided. (V) District Judges mechanically followed directions contained in High Court's circular, without noticing that under Rules, 2013 no quota for promotion from Group D to Group C is provided, though interestingly in the promotion orders reference has been made to Rules, 2013. (VI) Promotions were made but later on High Court itself detected illegality that without there being any provision under Rules, 2013 regarding promotion of Group D to Group C, promotions have been made, hence, it directed District Judges to cancel such illegal promotions. Orders passed by District Judges cancelling promotions are consequential to this direction of High Court. (VII) Last, but not the least, Rules, 2013 have been amended by Amendment Rules, 2017 and whatever earlier was omitted in Rules, 2013, has now been removed and promotion quota upto 20 per cent in Group C has been provided for Group D employees. (VIII) Thus, the only period which remains without any provision relating to promotion of Group D to Group C is 04.07.2013 to 20.06.2017. 21. In this backdrop, the following issues arise for our consideration:- (I) Whether Rules, 2013, in so far as no provision for promotion of Group D employees to Group C was made initially, i.e., till 20.06.2017, are arbitrary and ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (II) Whether promotions of petitioners from Group D to Group C after enforcement of Rules, 2013 made prior to 21.06.2017, were ex-facie illegal and void ab initio. (III) Whether vacancies in which promotions have been made, are those which already occurred before enforcement of Rules, 2013 and eligible Group D employees were entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with the provision as available before Rules, 2013. 22. (III) Whether vacancies in which promotions have been made, are those which already occurred before enforcement of Rules, 2013 and eligible Group D employees were entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with the provision as available before Rules, 2013. 22. Now, we proceed to examine the above issues and, first of all, we propose to consider the issue of vires of Rules, 2013 in so far as it did not make any provision for promotion of Group D employees to Group C. 23. On the question of vires the matter has been argued from two angles:- (I) Group D employees were entitled to have at least two avenues of promotion and the promotion quota which they were already enjoying for the last more than four and half decades, was denied abruptly making provision of only direct recruitment. It is per se arbitrary and discriminatory. (II) Whether the defect having been removed by Amendment Rules, 2017, operating aforesaid amendment prospectively, in stead of giving effect from the date Rules, 2013 were framed, is arbitrary and discriminatory. 24. First of all we propose to consider question of validity of Rules, 2013 prior to its amendment in 2017 in so far as it provided recruitment in Group C only by direct recruitment and not by promotion of Group D employees. 25. It is not disputed that under Rules, 1947 there was no provision permitting promotion of Group D employees to Group C post but such a mode of recruitment was provided by Government Order dated 01.01.1970 and for promotion of Group D employees in Group C in District Judgeships the same was extended by this Court's Circular dated 05.02.1973 and since then till promulgation of Rules, 2013 promotions have been made from Group D to Group C to the extent of 20% as and when vacancies had occurred following the manner of such promotion, i.e., written examination, interview and typing test provided in the Government Orders dated 01.01.1970 and on. In supercession of all the Rules framed prior to enforcement of Rules, 2013 new set of Rules were framed wherein also there was no provision permitting Group D employees as one of the course of recruitment in Group C by considering eligible Group D employees for promotion. In supercession of all the Rules framed prior to enforcement of Rules, 2013 new set of Rules were framed wherein also there was no provision permitting Group D employees as one of the course of recruitment in Group C by considering eligible Group D employees for promotion. Government Order dated 01.01.1970 and subsequent Government orders issued as such were not part of Rules, 1947 or any other Rule but issued independently containing own method of promotion and eligibility conditions and applied for promotion of Group D employees to Group C in District Judgeships by this Court's Circular dated 05.02.1973. We find it difficult to hold that Rules, 2013, therefore, when provided that all earlier Rules are being superseded, would include the independent Government orders issued from time to time commencing from 01.01.1970. If that be so, what was practiced and followed in respect of Rules, 1947 after issue of Government Order dated 01.01.1970 and subsequent Government orders, making amendment therein, in our view, that would have continued even after enactment of Rules, 2013 and, therefore, promotion of petitioners cannot be said to be invalid or illegal as the same were made admittedly in accordance with procedure laid down in said Government orders. Respondents also treated the same position inasmuch as when process of recruitment for promotion was initiated by respective District Judges as also on the Administrative Side, by this Court, they always referred to one or other Government orders, referred to above, in relation of promotion of Group D employees to Group C. In these circumstances, we find that it is not necessary to go into the validity of Rules, 2013 since relevant Government orders had continued to provide source of recruitment by promotion of Group D employees to Group C to the extent of 20% and, therefore, cancellation of petitioners' promotion and reversion to Group D post is patently illegal. 26. Learned Standing Counsel then contended that this argument will not prevail for the reason that in 2017 an amendment was made in Rules, 2013 which suggest that Government orders were not available. This argument, in our view, is also fallacious and ignores the fact that amendment made in Rules, 2017, in fact makes a provision of promotion of Group D employees to Group C in a manner which was not consistent with procedure prescribed in aforesaid Government orders. This argument, in our view, is also fallacious and ignores the fact that amendment made in Rules, 2017, in fact makes a provision of promotion of Group D employees to Group C in a manner which was not consistent with procedure prescribed in aforesaid Government orders. That being so, aforesaid Government orders became contrary to what was specifically provided in Rules, 2013 after amendment in 2017, and when Rules contained a provision specifically inconsistent to executive orders, i.e., Government orders, obvious consequence is that rules will prevail. Aforesaid Government orders thus came to an end on the enforcement of Amendment Rules, 2017 and thereafter field is covered by Rules, 2013 as amended in 2017. Then on, Government order would cease to apply. This is evident from the fact that under aforesaid Government orders procedure for promotion included written examination, interview etc. but the Rules, 2013 as amended in 2017 now provides promotion of Group D to Group C only on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and only eligibility for Group D employees is confined to 5 years satisfactory substantive service having qualification upto High School. In earlier Government orders 20% promotion quota was divided as 15% to those who had qualification upto High School and 5 years substantive service and 5% to those who had 5 years substantive service and Intermediate qualification. Now eligibility has been modified. Entire eligibility is now confined to those Group D employees who have educational qualification upto High School and have 5 years substantive and satisfactory service to their credit. All such Group D employees are entitled to be considered for promotion on the criteria seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Court has also made a distinction in respect of Amin Grade II post which earlier did not exist. Now it is provided that recruitment to Amin Grade II would be made only by direct recruitment and those posts shall not be available for promotion to Group D employees. Court has also made a distinction in respect of Amin Grade II post which earlier did not exist. Now it is provided that recruitment to Amin Grade II would be made only by direct recruitment and those posts shall not be available for promotion to Group D employees. Rules, 2013 as amended in 2017, therefore, are totally different than the Government orders and hence Government orders would cease to apply on and after 21.06.2017 when Rules, 2017 were amended and a different procedure for promotion to Group D employees has been adopted and till then earlier Government orders, in our view, held the field hence promotion of petitioners made there under cannot be said to be vitiated in law and illegal, hence impugned orders cannot be sustained. 27. In view of the fact that writ petitions can be allowed on above ground also, we do not find necessary to go into other aspects of the matter and, therefore, we leave other questions open to be considered in some appropriate time. 28. For the reasons stated above, writ petitions are allowed. Orders impugned in the writ petitions cancelling promotion of petitioners and reverting them from Group C to Group D post, are hereby set aside. Petitioners shall be treated to be validly promoted Group C employees and entitled for all consequential benefits.