JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate along with Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Fishery Department of the Govt. of Assam. 2. The issue involved in the instant writ petition relates to whether the respondent authorities were justified in issuance of the advertisement dated 15.09.2019 for filling up the post of Junior Assistant in the Office of the District Fisheries Development Officer, Karimganj that too when the proceedings pertaining to promotion of the petitioner from Grade–IV to Grade-III were pending after being recommended by the District Level Promotional Committee. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as Grade–IV employee by the respondent no.3, vide its Order dated 08.04.1994 and posted in the Office of the District Fisheries Development Officer, Karimganj. Admittedly, the petitioner had only passed HSLC or equivalent. 4. In the minutes of the meeting held on 27.03.2018, by the selection committee for promotion of Grade-IV in Karimganj District in the Office chamber of the District Fishery Development Officer, Karimganj, the petitioner was recommended to be promoted against the vacant post of Junior Assistant under the District Fishery Development Officer, Karimganj against the sanction dated 23.12.2003 against the vacant post of one Smti Papori Das who have been promoted. 5. It is pertinent herein to take note of that Smti Papori Das was to be promoted on the basis of recommendation of selection committee held on 30.12.2016. Pursuant to the resolution so adopted in the minutes of the meeting dated 27.03.2018, the District Fishery Development Officer, Karimganj vide a communication dated 05.04.2018, sought the approval for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant in the office of the District Fishery Development Officer, Karimganj. 6. Thereafter, the record reveals that certain queries were made by the concerned respondent authorities to the District Fishery Development Officer, Karimganj and there were certain correspondences exchanged. The petitioner had also vide a representation dated 25.07.2018 requested the Director of Fisheries, Assam to give the approval for his promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. 7. 6. Thereafter, the record reveals that certain queries were made by the concerned respondent authorities to the District Fishery Development Officer, Karimganj and there were certain correspondences exchanged. The petitioner had also vide a representation dated 25.07.2018 requested the Director of Fisheries, Assam to give the approval for his promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. 7. While the aforesaid process was going on, the respondent authorities, i.e., the District Fishery Development Officer Karimganj issued an advertisement dated 15.09.2019 calling from intending eligible candidates for filling up the sanction vacant post of the Junior Assistant. The petitioner being aggrieved had approached this Court challenging the said advertisement on the ground that as his promotion to the said post was at the stage of finalization, the respondent authorities ought not to have gone ahead with the said advertisement. 8. This Court had issued notice on 06.12.2019, and in the interim, it is provided that the post of Junior Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.09.2019 shall be filled up till the returnable date. The respondent authorities however, from time to time had sought for accommodation for filing their affidavit-in-opposition, but till date have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. 9. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, let this Court therefore, take into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 10. Mr. B. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was already recommended on 27.03.2018 by the selection committee and thereupon, the respondent authorities ought to have given the approval for his appointment which have not been done so, instead, the concerned respondent authority have gone ahead with an advertisement for filling up the said post thereby affecting the rights of the petitioner as regards his promotion. He further submitted that at the time when the petitioner was appointed, the qualifications necessary for the Junior Assistant was matriculation, which the petitioner possessed and as such, the rules of game cannot be changed at this stage. 11. Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Fisheries Department of the Govt. of Assam had submitted that by the notification dated 27.09.2016 issued by the Personnel Department, Govt. of Assam, it is clearly mandated that the qualifications necessary for the Grade–III post is graduation. 11. Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Fisheries Department of the Govt. of Assam had submitted that by the notification dated 27.09.2016 issued by the Personnel Department, Govt. of Assam, it is clearly mandated that the qualifications necessary for the Grade–III post is graduation. He submitted that in the selection committee minutes dated 27.03.2018, the selection committee did not take into consideration the said notification which came into effect on 28.10.2016 and as such, no vested right is accrued upon the petitioner on the basis of the selection committee minutes dated 27.03.2018. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 13. Let this Court first taking into consideration as to whether the qualification to the post as on the date on which the petitioner entered his service is required be taken into consideration or qualification can be changed in the meantime. 14. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of the State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar & Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 680, the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the various judgments pursuant to the judgment rendered in the case Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao reported in 1983 (3) SCC 284 observed in Paragraph no. 73 that the statement in Y.V. Rangaiah (Supra), “the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules” does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing the services under the Union and the States under Part IV of the Constitution and as such, overruled the judgment in the case of Y.V. Rangaiah (Supra). It was further observed that the rights and obligations of a person serving the Union and the Stated are to be sourced from the rules governing the services. 15. Under the circumstances, in view of the said law laid down, it is clear that the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Junior Assistant Grade-III has to be done in accordance with the rules, which applicable at the time of consideration of the case of petitioner and not the rules, which was prevalent at the time when petitioner entered the service as a Grade IV employee. 16. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the amendment which was caused vide the notification dated 27.09.2016, which came into effect on 28.10.2016 is a notification thereby amending Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967 and as such, the said amendment has no effect upon the present petitioner inasmuch as the Rules applicable for the Fishery Department have not been amended. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that there are presently no Rules for the Fishery Department. 17. On the other hand, Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the ministerial staff in the Districts the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Rules, 1967 (for short “the Rules of 1967”) is applicable. He submitted that in terms with Rule 6 (6) (b) of the Rules of 1967 as have came into force on 15.10.2015, for the post of Junior Assistant, the Selection is to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit from amongst the Grade IV staff of the District Establishment concerned who have passed degree examination in any discipline from, a recognized university amongst other qualification. 18. The learned counsel further submitted that the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973 (for short the Rules of 1973) by virtue of Rule 1 (2) of the Rules of 1973 also applies to the Directorate of Fishery which can be seen from the said Rule. He submits that the said Rule categorically mentioned that the said Rules shall be applicable to the ministerial staff of the office of the Head of the Departments mentioned in column (1) of the Schedule I. Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate has also drawn the attention to Schedule (I) and more particularly to serial no. 20 to show that the Director of Fishery come within the ambit of the said Rules if this Court is not inclined to hold that the Rules of 1967 applies. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the said Rules of 1973 is squarely applicable to the case in hand and as such, in terms with Rule 10 (3), the petitioner has to be posses a bachelor’s degree for being promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. 19. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the said Rules of 1973 is squarely applicable to the case in hand and as such, in terms with Rule 10 (3), the petitioner has to be posses a bachelor’s degree for being promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. 19. Be that as it may, from the above Rules i.e Rules of 1973, as well as Rules of 1967, it is clear that on 28.10.2016 as well as on 15.10.2015, the Rules pertaining to selection to the post of Junior Assistant requires the qualification to possess a degree from a recognized university. However, the Selection committee minutes dated 27.03.2018, did not take into consideration the said aspect of the matter and had made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. In the opinion of the Court, the said recommendation would be contrary to the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973, and as such, the said recommendation would not confer any right upon the petitioner to assail the advertisement issued on 15.09.2019. 20. Accordingly, this Court having not found any merit in the instant writ petition, the writ petition stands dismissed.