JUDGMENT S. K. Sahoo, J. - The petitioner Jadunath Sahu has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to quash the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereafter 'DPC') held on 15.07.2016 for promotion to the post of Additional Principal Secretary and the consequential promotional notification in favour of opposite party no.4 Prasanta Hrudaya Palai vide Annexure-3 and for a further direction directing the opposite party no.2 Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to promote him (petitioner) to the post of Additional Principal Secretary from the date his junior (opposite party no.4) was promoted w.e.f. 20.07.2016 and grant all the consequential service and financial benefits from that date and for a further direction directing the opposite parties nos.1 to 3 to re-fix his pension and other pensionary dues in such higher scale of pay and cadre pay in the promotional post of Additional Principal Secretary and to pay the differential arrears on such calculation within a stipulated period with interest @ 8% per annum. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was having qualification of Intermediate in Arts with shorthand and typewriting and in a due process of selection, he was appointed as a Junior Stenographer in the judgeship of Cuttack district on 07.04.1982. In response to an advertisement issued by this Court for appointment of Senior Stenographer, he faced the interview and was selected and joined as Senior Stenographer on 25.11.1986. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Personal Assistant on 10.05.1989 and while continuing in such post, he became a confirmed Government employee on 01.12.1995 and then he was promoted to the post of Secretary on 12.06.2006 and Senior Secretary on 03.11.2012. It is the further case of the petitioner that two posts of Additional Principal Secretary fell vacant and in order to fill up such posts, file was processed and a meeting of DPC was convened on 15.07.2016 and all the four Senior Secretaries available in the feeder cadre including the petitioner and the opposite party no.4 were called to attend the DPC. After the meeting was convened, the DPC recommended the names of one Kailash Chandra Pati whose position was serial no.1 in the gradation list as well as the opposite party no.4 Prasanta Hrudaya Palai whose position was serial no.4 in that list for promotion. After the meeting was convened, the DPC recommended the names of one Kailash Chandra Pati whose position was serial no.1 in the gradation list as well as the opposite party no.4 Prasanta Hrudaya Palai whose position was serial no.4 in that list for promotion. The DPC did not consider the case of the petitioner as well as one Sri P.C. Pradhan who were senior to the opposite party no.4 as per the gradation list and accordingly, notifications were issued on 20.07.2017 promoting Kailash Chandra Pati and the opposite party no.4 to the post of Additional Principal Secretary. The DPC found the petitioner as well as Sri P.C. Pradhan lacking in minimum educational qualification i.e. Bachelor's degree required for that post as per the High Court of Orissa (Appointment of Staff and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015 (hereafter 2015 Rules'). It is the further case of the petitioner that he had more than thirty one years of service as on the date of holding of last DPC on 15.07.2016 and there was no adverse entry or remark entered in his service record and no adverse remark was ever communicated to him. Being the serial no.2 in the gradation list of Senior Secretaries in the establishment of this Court till 15.07.2016, he had a legitimate expectation for promotion to the post of Additional Principal Secretary as there were two vacancies in that post. He submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice through the Registrar (Judicial) on 25.08.2016 indicating his grievances and to consider his case for promotion and to restore his seniority from the date his junior (opposite party no.4) got the promotion. It is the further case of the petitioner that prior to the 2015 Rules, the Orissa High Court (Appointment of Staff and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 (hereafter 1963 Rules') was in force and the entry qualification for appointment to the post of Junior Stenographer/Senior Stenographer was matriculate with shorthand and typewriting. The amended 2015 Rules came into force vide notification dated 25.02.2015 and as per the amended Rules, the qualification for appointment to the Steno cadre was prescribed as Bachelor's degree in any discipline with stenography. The amended 2015 Rules came into force vide notification dated 25.02.2015 and as per the amended Rules, the qualification for appointment to the Steno cadre was prescribed as Bachelor's degree in any discipline with stenography. So far as the promotion to the post of Additional Principal Secretary is concerned, the minimum qualification prescribed is Bachelor's degree in any discipline from a recognised University or such other qualification equivalent thereto having good knowledge in Hindi and English and he must be a fit person to hold the post in the opinion of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and minimum experience of one year as Senior Secretary to the Hon'ble Judges. The mode of promotion was prescribed as 'by promotion from the post of Senior Secretary basing on merit with due regard to seniority and suitability'. It has been specifically stated in the new 2015 Rules as per Rule 1 under the heading of 'Explanation' that nothing in that Rules shall adversely affect any person, who was a member of the service on the date of coming into force of these Rules. It is the further case of the petitioner that he entered into the service of the Court's establishment prior to the coming of 2015 Rules into force and the subsequent eligibility qualification in the entry grade or for promotion to the cadre of Additional Principal Secretary cannot be made applicable to him. The petitioner highlighted the cases of Raghunath Sahoo and Akshaya Kumar Dhal having the qualification of I.A. and I.Com respectively to have been given promotion to the post of Senior Secretary vide notifications dated 31.03.2017. According to the petitioner, the decision taken by the authorities is against the basic principle of law with regard to parity as under the same set of Rules i.e. 2015 Rules, the claim of the petitioner was rejected whereas the cases of Raghunath Sahoo and Akshaya Kumar Dhal were considered for promotion without having Bachelor's degree. The petitioner further highlighted the cases of Mahendra Kumar Routray and Bijay Kumar Sahoo, Section Officers of the Court to have been promoted to the cadre of Superintendent in the Court's establishment even though they were having Intermediate qualification to their credit. The petitioner further highlighted the cases of Mahendra Kumar Routray and Bijay Kumar Sahoo, Section Officers of the Court to have been promoted to the cadre of Superintendent in the Court's establishment even though they were having Intermediate qualification to their credit. According to the petitioner, the DPC has bypassed the Rules and adopted a novel practice and procedure beyond the Rules for promotion to the post of Additional Principal Secretary from amongst the Senior Secretaries by promoting the junior over the petitioner who had an unblemished service record. The decision taken by the DPC on dated 15.07.2016 by misinterpreting 2015 Rules needs reconsideration in the light of decision taken in the DPC on dated 31.03.2017 for promotion to the post of Senior Secretary. According to the petitioner, though he has retired from Government service w.e.f. 31.05.2017 but his representations dated 25.08.2016 and 11.04.2017 vide Annexures-3 and 6 have not been considered and due to his non-promotion, he has suffered mentally and financially. 3. On behalf of the opposite party no.2 Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, counter affidavit was filed wherein a stand has been taken that the notifications dated 20.07.2016 promoting the opposite party no.4 and another to the post of Additional Principal Secretary were issued in terms of the recommendation made by the DPC held on 16.07.2016 strictly in compliance of the recruitment Rules in vogue and the action of the opposite party no.2 was legal, valid and justified. The DPC after interviewing the petitioner and giving its due consideration to the service records of the petitioner did not find him suitable on comparative merit vis-a-vis opposite party no.4 for promotion to the cadre of Additional Principal Secretary and as such recommended the case of the opposite party no.4 and another for promotion. It is stated that Rule 21 of 2015 Rules has clearly stipulated about the repeal of 1963 Rules and therefore, the provisions of the repealed Rules did not survive to be acted upon or to confer any right on anybody or to lay down the criteria for promotion or procedure for the purpose. It is stated that Rule 21 of 2015 Rules has clearly stipulated about the repeal of 1963 Rules and therefore, the provisions of the repealed Rules did not survive to be acted upon or to confer any right on anybody or to lay down the criteria for promotion or procedure for the purpose. It is stated that promotion to the higher post is based on merit with due regard to seniority as per the provisions envisaged in Rule 13 of the 2015 Rules read with criteria fixed under the Odisha Civil Services (Criteria for Promotion) Rules, 1992 and not on the basis of entries in CCRs alone. An employee having good CCRs without any adverse entry therein cannot claim automatic promotion as other eligibility criteria are required for such promotion. The case of the petitioner is covered under the 2015 Rules and in view of Rule 21 of the said Rules, old qualification requirement for promotion cannot continue ignoring the new as prescribed in the Appendix to the 2015 Rules. An employee cannot remain immune from the new Rules relating to qualification requirement for promotion to the higher post. The DPC found the petitioner was having lack of requisite educational qualification and therefore unsuitable for promotion. The proceeding of the DPC held on 16.07.2016 was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice who approved the recommendations on 19.07.2016 and ordered that candidates at serial nos. 1 and 4 be promoted to the post of Additional Principal Secretary against the newly created vacancies in the Court's establishment as per the merit. It is stated that an employee coming within the zone of consideration has a right to be considered for promotion but he cannot ipso facto claim promotion to the post. The representations of the petitioner are pending awaiting the result of this writ petition. DPC after perusal of CCRs, antecedents, service records, performance of the employees in the cadre of Senior Secretary including the petitioner in the interview and considering the comparative merit and suitability of all such candidates, recommended the names of candidates at serial nos. 1 and 4 in the gradation list for promotion in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. The petitioner did not possess the minimum educational qualification as required under the 2015 Rules for which he was not found suitable for promotion. 1 and 4 in the gradation list for promotion in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. The petitioner did not possess the minimum educational qualification as required under the 2015 Rules for which he was not found suitable for promotion. It is stated that the result of subsequent DPC held for promotion to the cadre of Senior Secretary wherein the incumbents having Intermediate qualification were given promotion to the post of Senior Secretary under the same Rules has no relevance to the case in hand and the same is not comparable with the decision taken by the DPC giving promotion to the opposite party no.4 and another to the cadre of Additional Principal Secretary which is a key post in the Court's establishment and its qualification is different from that prescribed for the post of Senior Secretary. It is stated that the promotion given in favour of the opposite party no.4 was with due approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The criteria regarding the educational qualification for promotion to the post of Addl. Principal Secretary and that for promotion to the cadre of Senior Secretary, as per rules are distinctly different. For promotion to the cadre of Additional Principal Secretary, a candidate should not only possess a Bachelor's degree and have good knowledge in Hindi and English, but he should also be a fit person in the opinion of the Hon'ble Chief Justice to hold such post whereas for promotion to the post of Senior Secretary, a candidate is only required to possess a Bachelor's degree. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the incumbents in the cadre of Secretary were promoted to the cadre of Senior Secretary basing upon the principle of merit with due regard to seniority and suitability by the DPC whereas the opposite party no.4 and another were promoted to the cadre of Additional Principal Secretary not only after they were adjudged suitable by the DPC basing upon the principle of merit with due regard to seniority and suitability but also after they were found fit in the opinion of the Hon'ble Chief Justice to hold such post. 4. The opposite party no.4 filed his counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the post of Additional Principal Secretary is the promotional post of which post of Senior Secretary is the feeder post/grade as per the recruitment Rules in vogue. 4. The opposite party no.4 filed his counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the post of Additional Principal Secretary is the promotional post of which post of Senior Secretary is the feeder post/grade as per the recruitment Rules in vogue. 1963 Rules came to be repealed by 2015 Rules and in the later Rules, the post of Additional Principal Secretary has been prescribed as a post to be filled up only by way of promotion and the eligibility criteria has been prescribed as Bachelor's degree or equivalent qualification and having good knowledge in Hindi and English and a person who is fit to hold the post in the opinion of the Hon'ble Chief Justice besides the experience requirement of at least one year as Senior Secretary. It is stated that while 2015 Rules was in vogue, a DPC for filing up three posts of Addl. Principal Secretary was held on 15.07.2016 and the criteria for promotion as prescribed under Rule 13(a) being merit with due regard to seniority and suitability was considered by the DPC and the cases of all the Senior Secretaries who had put in experience of more than one year was taken into account and the DPC recommended two persons namely Kailash Chandra Pati and the opposite party no.4 for promotion and placed the recommendation for approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in compliance of the Rules. The opposite party no.4 was comparatively found to be fit and more meritorious than the petitioner irrespective of his higher seniority position in the gradation list of Senior Secretaries prepared. It is further stated that the merit being the primary criteria for promotion but not seniority, the petitioner was adjudged as not fit for such promotion by the DPC while DPC found the opposite party no.4 as fit or suitable for such promotion against the post of Additional Principal Secretary. The petitioner lacked the requisite qualification prescribed in 2015 Rules. It is further stated that in view of Rule 21 of 2015 Rules, the contentions advanced by the petitioner basing on the explanation appended to Rule 1 of 2015 Rules is misconceived and unsustainable. Since all the provisions of 1963 Rules stood repealed specifically w.e.f. 28.02.2015, the said Rules and prescription therein stood obliterated/abrogated/wiped out wholly i.e. protanto repeal. It is further stated that in view of Rule 21 of 2015 Rules, the contentions advanced by the petitioner basing on the explanation appended to Rule 1 of 2015 Rules is misconceived and unsustainable. Since all the provisions of 1963 Rules stood repealed specifically w.e.f. 28.02.2015, the said Rules and prescription therein stood obliterated/abrogated/wiped out wholly i.e. protanto repeal. It is stated that the explanation clause to Rule 1 of 2015 Rules cannot be allowed to make Rule 21 and its effect meaningless. 5. Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while 1963 Rules was in vogue, the post of Additional Principal Secretary was introduced to the cadre of hierarchy of the Stenographer/Secretarial Staff in order to give them an opportunity for promotion in their service career and no additional educational qualification was attached to such post. The new cadre posts were filled up by way of promotion from the feeder cadre of Senior Secretary and the educational qualification available as prescribed to the post continued to the higher post. The Senior Secretaries who have I.A/I.Sc/I.Com qualification to their credit on acquiring required number of experience were to be given promotion to the next higher post up to the post of Principal Secretary. It is argued that the petitioner who was an Intermediate in Arts had the legitimate expectation to reach the higher post in course of his employment with selfsame qualification as he had an unblemished service records. It is argued that even though as per 2015 Rules, the minimum entry level qualification in the cadre strength of Junior Stenographer up to the Senior Principal Secretary is Bachelor's degree in any discipline with other qualifications but in view of the explanation to Rule 1 of 2015 Rules, the new additional qualification in the entry level i.e. Bachelor's degree will not affect a person already in service. In other words, according to him, the existing employees who did not possess Bachelor's degree to their credit but continued in different ranks either in the Secretarial cadre or in the Ministerial cadre can get the promotion to the next higher rank. In other words, according to him, the existing employees who did not possess Bachelor's degree to their credit but continued in different ranks either in the Secretarial cadre or in the Ministerial cadre can get the promotion to the next higher rank. It is contended that even though as per the gradation list, the petitioner was above the opposite party no.4 but only on the ground of lack of educational qualification, the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion by the DPC which is quite unreasonable and illegal. The learned counsel submitted that another DPC was convened to give promotion to the post of Senior Secretary from the Secretaries and even though as per 2015 Rules, the minimum educational qualification for such higher post was Bachelor's degree but in its meeting dated 31.03.2017, the DPC recommended two Secretaries namely Sri Raghunath Sahu and Sri Akhaya Kumar Dhal, who were having educational qualification I.A./I.Com. respectively to the post of Senior Secretaries and accordingly, they were given promotion to the post of Senior Secretaries on 31.03.2017. It is argued that the petitioner has been discriminated and debarred from getting the promotion only on the ground of lack of requisite qualification and the same violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While concluding his argument, the learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner has retired in the meantime even if the writ petition is allowed, the petitioner will only get some financial benefits and the opposite party no.4 will not be affected as such. Sri Jyoti Prakash Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as Mr. Biswa Bihari Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 supported the decision taken by the DPC as well as the respective stand taken in their counter affidavits and contended that after the coming into force of 2015 Rules, the petitioner who was having no requisite educational qualification for the post of Additional Principal Secretary could not have been selected for such post and therefore, the decision taken by the DPC was perfectly justified and the recommendation made by the DPC was also considered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice who accepted such recommendation and therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition which should be dismissed. 6. 6. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following undisputed facts are borne out of the record: (i) The petitioner was having educational qualification of Intermediate in Arts and he was holding the post of Senior Secretary since 03.11.2012; (ii) As per the gradation list, the petitioner was senior to the opposite party no.4 when the DPC was held on 15.07.2016 to consider the case of promotion of Senior Secretaries to the post of Additional Principal Secretary; (iii) Hon'ble Chief Justice in exercise of his power conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India in supersession of the 1963 Rules brought 2015 Rules, which was notified in the Official Gazette on 28.02.2015. (iv) The minimum qualification for the post of Additional Principal Secretary was prescribed for the first time in 2015 Rules and such a post was required to be filled up by way of promotion from the feeder cadre of Senior Secretary; (v) As per 2015 Rules, the minimum educational qualification for the post of Additional Principal Secretary is Bachelor's degree in any discipline from a recognized University or such other qualification equivalent thereto; (vi) The DPC considered the cases of persons available in the cadre of Senior Secretary for promotion and the name of the opposite party no.4 was recommended for promotion even though he was junior to the petitioner as per the gradation list; (vii) The petitioner was not found suitable for promotion to the post of Additional Principal Secretary mainly on the ground of lack of minimum educational qualification. 7. The Orissa High Court (Appointment of Staff) Rules, 1963 and The Orissa High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1963 came to be repealed by 2015 Rules. The explanation to Rule 1 of 2015 Rules provided that nothing in the Rules shall adversely affect any person who was a member of service on the date of coming into force of the Rules. The explanation to Rule 1 of 2015 Rules provided that nothing in the Rules shall adversely affect any person who was a member of service on the date of coming into force of the Rules. The explanation to Rule 1 of 2015 Rules which is relevant for the case is quoted herein below: "Explanation:- Nothing in these Rules shall adversely affect any person who was a member of the service on the date of coming into force of these Rules." The legislative intent behind the explanation which opens with the words 'nothing in these Rules' is clear and it shows a purpose that any method of appointment, recruitment or selection process to a particular post provided in a different manner in the new Rules which a person is already holding as per the repealed Rules shall not adversely affect him. This construction is consistent with the purpose of explanation and it will be preferred as against any other construction. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. Unless a statute conferring the power to make rules provides for the making of rules with retrospective operation, the rules made pursuant to that power can have prospective operation only. 2015 Rules nowhere either expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. It will have prospective effect and will not adversely affect any person who is a member of the service as on 28.02.2015 and already holding a particular post as per the repealed Rules even if for that particular post, a different method of appointment, recruitment or selection process is provided in the new Rules. For example, even if a higher educational qualification has been prescribed for a particular post as per the new Rules, the person already holding that post having lesser educational qualification appointed on the basis of the repealed Rules shall not be adversely affected. In other words, he cannot be reverted back to any other post lower in rank which matches his educational qualification. However after the new Rules came into force, for the next promotional post, the procedure should be governed as per the new Rules and educational qualification etc. as prescribed for such higher post should be adhered to and that is how the explanation to Rule 1 requires to be interpreted. However after the new Rules came into force, for the next promotional post, the procedure should be governed as per the new Rules and educational qualification etc. as prescribed for such higher post should be adhered to and that is how the explanation to Rule 1 requires to be interpreted. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of explanation, the case of promotion of the petitioner to the next higher post shall also not be affected adversely on the ground of lack of minimum educational qualification for such higher post is accepted, then the repealing provision as provided in Rule 21 of 2015 Rules would be meaningless. In the said Rule, a saving clause has been provided which states that in spite of the repeal of two Rules of 1963, any order or appointment made, action taken or things done under the Rules, Regulations, instructions or Orders so repealed shall be deemed to have been made, taken or done under 2015 Rules. A saving clause is used to preserve from destruction of certain rights or privileges already existing. It saves or safeguards all the rights the party previously had, not that it gives him any new rights. In view of such saving clause as provided in Rule 21, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the petitioner is lacking educational qualification for the post of Additional Principal Secretary as per the new Rules, he is entitled to be given promotion is virtually keeping the old repealed Rules in an active condition for the purpose of promotion which is not permissible. It is not in dispute that while 1963 Rules was in vogue, the post of Additional Principal Secretary was created on 21.11.2011 by way of up-gradation of one post of Senior Secretary as per notification issued by Government of Odisha, Home Department which has been concurred by the Finance Department. No additional educational qualification was also attached to such post then. However when 2015 Rules came into force by repealing 1963 Rules, minimum qualification, experience and specific mode of recruitment were provided for such post. Two posts in the Steno Cadre were further upgraded as Additional Principal Secretary on 26.02.2016 as per the notification issued by the Government of Odisha, Home Department which was concurred by the Finance Department. However when 2015 Rules came into force by repealing 1963 Rules, minimum qualification, experience and specific mode of recruitment were provided for such post. Two posts in the Steno Cadre were further upgraded as Additional Principal Secretary on 26.02.2016 as per the notification issued by the Government of Odisha, Home Department which was concurred by the Finance Department. Thus any promotion to those posts thereafter would be governed under the new Rules and not under the repealed Rules. In the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission -Vrs.- Chanan Ram, (1998) 4 SCC 202 , it is held that it is the rules which are prevalent at the time when the consideration took place for promotion would be applicable. In the case of Deepak Agarwal -Vrs.- State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 725 , it is held as follows: "26. It is by now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the 'rule in force' on the date the consideration took place. There is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises. The requirement of filling up old vacancies under the old rules is interlinked with the candidate having acquired a right to be considered for promotion. The right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. Unless, of course, the applicable rule, as in Y.V. Rangaiahs case, (1983) 3 SCC 284 lays down any particular time frame, within which the selection process is to be completed. In the present case, consideration for promotion took place after the amendment came into operation. Thus, it cannot be accepted that any accrued or vested right of the appellants have been taken away by the amendment." In the case of State of Tripura -Vrs.- Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty, (2017) 3 SCC 646 , it is held as follows:- "9. The law is thus clear that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, namely, "rules in force on the date" the consideration takes place and that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled by the law existing on the date when they arose. The law is thus clear that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, namely, "rules in force on the date" the consideration takes place and that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled by the law existing on the date when they arose. As against the case of total exclusion and absolute deprivation of a chance to be considered as in Deepak Agarwal (supra), in the instant case certain additional posts have been included in the feeder cadre, thereby expanding the zone of consideration. It is not as if the writ petitioners or similarly situated candidates were totally excluded. At best, they now had to compete with some more candidates. In any case, since there was no accrued right nor was there any mandate that vacancies must be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arose, the State was well within its rights to stipulate that the vacancies be filled in accordance with the Rules as amended...." In the case of D. Raghu -Vrs.- R. Basaveswarudu,2020 SCCOnline(SC) 124 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "106. But the High Court was not right in directing filling-up of vacancies prior to 07.12.2002, based on the 1979 Rules, as after the 2003 Rules came into force, going by the intention of the Authority, the right to promotion would be based on the new Rules, even if the vacancies arose prior to the new Rules." In view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions, merely because the petitioner was having qualification of Intermediate in Arts and an unblemished service record and had the expectation to reach the higher post in course of his employment with the self-same qualification, he cannot be given promotion to such post as the new Rules provided minimum qualification, inter alia, Bachelor's degree in any discipline from a recognised University. Coming to the point of legitimate expectation of the petitioner as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Union of India -Vrs.- Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 499 , it is held that "28.....For legal purposes, the expectation cannot be the same as anticipation. It is different from a wish, a desire or a hope nor can it amount to a claim or demand on the ground of a right. It is different from a wish, a desire or a hope nor can it amount to a claim or demand on the ground of a right. However earnest and sincere a wish, a desire or a hope may be and however confidently one may look to them to be fulfilled, they by themselves cannot amount to an assertable expectation and a mere disappointment does not attract legal consequences. A pious hope even leading to a moral obligation cannot amount to a legitimate expectation. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regular and natural sequence. Again it is distinguishable from a genuine expectation. Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and protectable. Every such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify into a right and therefore it does not amount to a right in the conventional sense." In the case of Ram Parvesh Singh -Vrs.- State of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 381 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "15. What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice. The term 'established practice' refers to a regular, consistent predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such.....A legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle the expectant to a relief. Public interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant or any other valid or bonafide reason given by the decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the 'legitimate expectation'." There is nothing to show that the decision taken by the DPC as per 2015 Rules was arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, unfair, biased, gross abuse of power or in violation of principles of natural justice. The doctrine of legitimate expectation ordinarily would not have any application when the legislature has enacted a statute. Thus the plea of legitimate expectation does not appear to be of any assistance to the petitioner. The doctrine of legitimate expectation ordinarily would not have any application when the legislature has enacted a statute. Thus the plea of legitimate expectation does not appear to be of any assistance to the petitioner. 1963 Rules and 2015 Rules cannot run simultaneously and the provisions contained in the 1963 Rules would have to give way to the new Rules in the matter of method of appointment, recruitment, promotion etc. and only exception would be that the persons who were already occupying a particular post shall not be affected adversely by coming into force of the new Rules and they would continue to hold the said post even though as per new Rules, higher educational qualification has been prescribed to hold such post. That is the true spirit of the explanation to Rule 1 as well as the proviso to Rule 21 of 2015 Rules. As per the 2015 Rules, the post of Additional Principal Secretary is a Group 'A' post which appears in Rule 3 as category 17 under the heading of 'Classification of Posts'. As per Rule 4, this category of post shall be filled up by way of promotion from the staff of the High Court of Orissa from the feeder post/cadre, subject to requisite qualification and experience as prescribed in Appendix-I of the Rules. Serial No.17 of Appendix 1 to the said Rules prescribes, inter alia, minimum educational qualification, experience and mode of recruitment to such post which is as follows:- (i) Bachelor's degree in any discipline from a recognized University or such other qualification equivalent thereto, having good knowledge in Hindi and English and is a fit person to hold the post in the opinion of the Hon'ble Chief Justice; (ii) He should have at least one year experience as Senior Secretary to the Hon'ble Judges; (iii) Such post is to be filled up by promotion from the post of Senior Secretary basing on the merit with due regard to seniority and suitability. Therefore, a person holding the post of Senior Secretary to the Hon'ble Judges at least having one year experience as such and having Bachelor's degree in any discipline from a recognized University or such other qualification equivalent thereto and having good knowledge in Hindi and English can be considered for the post of Additional Principal Secretary provided that according to the opinion of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, he is a fit person to hold such post. A person holding the post of Senior Secretary cannot be automatically promoted to that post basing on his seniority as per the gradation list since as per the mode of recruitment, such promotion is to be based on the merit with due regard to seniority and suitability. A Senior Secretary in the top of the gradation list may not be given automatic promotion to the post of Additional Principal Secretary, if he lacks merit or found to be not suitable to hold such post. Similarly a Senior Secretary in the top of the gradation list may not be given automatic promotion to the post of Additional Principal Secretary even though he is having minimum educational qualification and good knowledge in Hindi and English, if according to the opinion of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, he is not a fit person to hold such post. Rule 13 of 2015 Rules states that promotions to the various posts in the High Court service shall be made by the appointing authority basing on the merit with due regard to the seniority and suitability as per the provisions specified in Column (8) of Appendix 1. In the case of Registrar General, High Court of Madras -Vrs.- R. Gandhi, (2014) 11 SCC 547 , it is held that eligibility is a matter of fact whereas suitability is a matter of opinion. Suitability cannot be a subject matter of judicial review. In the case of Valsala Kumari Devi M. -Vrs.- Director, Higher Secondary Education, (2007) 8 SCC 533 , it is held that the expression 'suitability' means that a person to be appointed shall be legally eligible and 'eligible' should be taken to mean 'fit to be chosen'. Rule 13(e) of 2015 Rules states that the Hon'ble Chief Justice may, in case of a suitable and highly deserving candidate or class of candidates and for exigency, dispense with all or any of the requirements as prescribed under that Rule. Rule 13(e) of 2015 Rules states that the Hon'ble Chief Justice may, in case of a suitable and highly deserving candidate or class of candidates and for exigency, dispense with all or any of the requirements as prescribed under that Rule. Similarly Rule 20 of 2015 Rules permits the Hon'ble Chief Justice to relax or dispense with any of the provision of the Rules in case of administrative exigency for the reasons to be recorded in writing and by passing an order to that effect. In the case in hand, even though the case of the petitioner who was in serial no.2 as per the gradation list was placed before the DPC along with other three Senior Secretaries but it was found that the petitioner was lacking minimum educational qualification to hold the post of Additional Principal Secretary and therefore, apart from recommending the name of the person who was in serial no.1, the name of opposite party no.4 who was in serial no.4 as per the gradation list was also recommended. The person who was in serial no.3 was not recommended on the similar ground like that of the petitioner. When the recommendation of the DPC was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, he also did not think it proper to relax the provision of educational qualification exercising his power under Rule 20 of 2015 Rules rather found the persons recommended by the DPC to be the fit persons to hold such post and therefore, it cannot be said that at any level, any illegality has been committed to the case of the petitioner in not recommending his name for promotion or not selecting him for such post. According to our humble view, even though seniority is one of the criteria apart from the service records but other requirements cannot be given a go-bye while considering someone to the next higher post. According to our humble view, even though seniority is one of the criteria apart from the service records but other requirements cannot be given a go-bye while considering someone to the next higher post. There is no dispute that at the level of Additional Principal Secretary, a person should have good knowledge in Hindi and English as he is supposed to deal with the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as other High Courts and deal with many important files and therefore, discretion has been left with the Hon'ble Chief Justice to place the fittest person in such post who was having necessary qualification and eligibility criteria and in appropriate cases, he has also got the power of relaxation as provided under Rule 20 of 2015 Rules. The DPC seems to have perused the CCR, antecedents, service records and performance of the candidates in the cadre of Senior Secretary and after taking their interview, considered the comparative merit and suitability of all the four candidates and accordingly recommended the name of person who was at serial no.1 and also of the opposite party no.4. We find no flaw in such recommendation. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in some other posts, where the minimum educational qualification has been prescribed has been deviated by the DPC at a subsequent stage and promotion has been given is based on negative equality which is not acceptable. Law is well settled that a party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case, direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters, there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs at par. It is also the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage a negative equality. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs at par. It is also the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage a negative equality. Even if in some cases, promotions have been made by dispensing with any requirements or relaxing any of the provisions of the Rules on account of some administrative exigencies in view of the special power lies with the Hon'ble Chief Justice, that does not confer any right on the petitioner. (Ref: Sneh Prabha -Vrs.- State of U.P., (1996) AIR SC 540 , Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority -Vrs.- Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35 , State of Haryana -Vrs.- Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321 , Faridabad C.T. Scan Center -Vrs.- D.G. Health Services, (1997) AIR SC 3801 , Jalandhar Improvement Trust -Vrs.- Sampuran Singh, (1999) AIR SC 1347 , Union of India -Vrs.- International Trading Co., (2003) AIR SC 3983 , Kastha Niwarak G.S.S. Maryadit, Indore - Vrs.- President, Indore Development Authority, (2006) AIR SC 1142) . The post of Additional Principal Secretary was created vide Govt. of Odisha, Home Department letter no. 48045 dated 21.11.2011. Two posts were further upgraded vide Govt. of Odisha, Home Department letter no. 7733 dated 26.02.2016. Thus the total cadre strength became three. It seems that prior to the promotion to the post of Additional Principal Secretary in the case in hand, four persons namely, Purna Chandra Chhatoi, Tulasi Prasad Raiguru, Shyam Sundar Dey and Bibhuti Bhusan Pati were promoted to the post of Additional Principal Secretary as per the Orissa High Court (Appointment of Staff) Rules, 1963 and the Orissa High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1963 at different point of time. Except Purna Chandra Chhatoi, all the three others were having Bachelor's degree. After 2015 Rules came into force, apart from the opposite party no.4 who was having qualification of B.Com., LL.B., the other person promoted in this case was Kailash Chandra Pati who was having qualification of B.A., LL.B. Therefore, after 2015 Rules came into force, there is no deviation to the requirement of minimum educational qualification as has been prescribed in such Rules for the said post. 9. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the humble view that the proceedings of DPC held on 15.07.2016 for promotion to the post of Additional Principal Secretary and the promotion notification in favour of opposite party no.4 vide Annexure-3 was quite legal, valid and justified. We are also of the view that the petitioner was rightly not promoted to the post of Additional Principal Secretary in view of lack of eligibility criteria prescribed for such post as per 2015 Rules and therefore, he is not entitled to get any service and financial benefits attached to that post. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. S. Panda, J. I agree.