ORDER : One of the main issues raised in these petitions is whether old vacancies are required to be filled-up on the basis of old Rules. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in all these petitions possessed the minimum qualification of 10+2, two years diploma in Medical Lab Technology and were registered with the Medical Council, as was the eligibility prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Medical Laboratory Technician, Grade-II, in the year 2004. 3. However, their grievance is that since the vacancies of Medical Laboratory Technician were not filled-up at the relevant time, therefore, these vacancies should be filled-up on the basis of old Rules and not on the basis of amended/repealed Rules, effected vide notification dated 11.09.2012, whereby minimum qualification has been changed to 10+2 with only Science and subsequently B.Sc. Medical Laboratory Technology/B.Sc Medical Technology Laboratory/B.Sc Medical Technology Laboratory/B.Sc Medical Laboratory Science/B.Sc. in Medical Laboratory Technology (Lateral), has been made essential qualification vide notification dated 17.01.2020. 4. It is in this background that the petitioners have sought quashing of notification dated 17.01.2020 and have further sought directions to the respondents not to give effect to the amended Rules and filled-up the posts on the basis of old Rules, i.e. Rules prevalent in the year, 2004. 5. The issue whether old vacancies are required to be filled-up on the basis of old Rules is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered by three Judges Bench in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 9746 of 2011, decided on 20th May, 2022. 6. The facts therein were that the posts of Labour Officers were governed by Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1966, dated 01.03.1966 made in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. There were 5 posts of Labour Officers and these were to be filled-up by promotion from (i) Factory Inspectors, (ii) Labour Inspectors and (iii) Sectt. Superintendents, being the feeder category. 7. On 20.07.2006, Secretary, Labour and Employment Department addressed a letter to the Labour Commissioner intimating sanction for creation of additional posts in the department which inter alia included 7 more posts for Labour officers. As a consequence of the said decision, the total posts of Labour Officers increased from 5 to 12. Superintendents, being the feeder category. 7. On 20.07.2006, Secretary, Labour and Employment Department addressed a letter to the Labour Commissioner intimating sanction for creation of additional posts in the department which inter alia included 7 more posts for Labour officers. As a consequence of the said decision, the total posts of Labour Officers increased from 5 to 12. At this point in time respondents No. 1 to 3 were working as Labour Inspectors in the service of the State. 8. Within four months from the sanction of the additional posts, the 1966 Rules came to be amended on 25.11.2006. Under the New Rules called the H.P. Labour and Employment Department, Labour Officers, Classs-II (Gazetted) Ministerial Services R & P Rules, 2006, recruitment to the post of Labour Officers was to be made by promotion as well as direct recruitment in the ratio of 75% and 25% respectively. The effect of the New Rules coupled with the 7 new posts for Labour Officers is that from total number of 12 posts of Labour Officers, the promotional posts increased from 5 to 9 (being 75%) and direct recruitment posts came to 3 (being 25%). The State accordingly issued a notification creating 12 Labour zones in the State. 9. It is in this background that respondents No. 1 to 3, therein, who had been working as Labour Inspectors approached the Administrative Tribunal assailing the proposed action of the State Government in filling-up 25% of the posts of Labour Officers by direct recruitment. They contended that the vacancies arose in July, 2006 i.e. before the promulgation of the New Rules and therefore, should be filled-up only by way of promotion as was the provisions prevalent in the Rules operational at that time. 10. By its order dated 24.01.2007, the Tribunal directed the State to consider the grievance raised in the Original Application, as if it was a representation to it. The representation was considered and rejected by the Government on 27.06.2007, challenging the rejection, the second Original Application was filed by the respondents before the State Administrative Tribunal. 11. However, while the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the State Government proceeded further and issued an advertisement through the H.P. Public Service Commission, calling for applications for filling up 3 posts of Labour Officers under the quota of direct recruitment. 11. However, while the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the State Government proceeded further and issued an advertisement through the H.P. Public Service Commission, calling for applications for filling up 3 posts of Labour Officers under the quota of direct recruitment. The Public Service Commission completed the recruitment process and recommended the names of respondents No. 4 to 6 (therein). The recommendation was accepted and the said respondents were appointed and joined the duties on 4th and 5th November, 2008. 12. Questioning the legality and validity of such appointments, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed CWP No. 3028 of 2008 before this Court and the same was allowed by the Division Bench vide its order dated 28.12.2009. However, the order of the Division Bench was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9746 of 2011 (Supra). 13. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is culled out in para 4.1 of the judgment, which reads as under:- “4.1 The real question is whether the vacancies which arose prior to the promulgation of the new rules are to be filled only as per the old rules and not as per the amended rules? It is argued that this principle is no more res-integra as the Supreme Court recognized such a right in Rangaiah’s case and it has been followed in large number of subsequent decisions. As list of such judgments was forwarded to the Court by the respondents. On the other hand, while submitted that there is no such right, an even larger list of decisions of this Court that distinguished Rangaiah was forwarded to us on behalf of the State.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration various provisions of law, as well as earlier precedent, overruled its earlier judgment that had been rendered in Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284 , by observing as under:- “In view of the above principles, flowing from the constitutional status of a person in employment with the State, we have no hesitation in holding that the observations in Rangaiah that posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and not by new Rules do not reflect the correct position of law. We have already explained that the status of a Government employee involves a relationship governed exclusively by rules and that there are no rights outside these rules that govern the services. Further, the Court in Rangaiah’s case has not justified its observation by locating such a right on any principle or on the basis of the new Rules. As there are a large number of judgments which followed Rangaiah under the assumption that an overarching principle has been laid down in Rangaiah, we have to necessarily examine the cases that followed Rangaiah. We will now examine how subsequent decisions understood, applied or distinguished Rangaiah.” 15. The legal position was ultimately culled out in paragraph 36 to 37.03, which reads as under:- “36. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under:- 1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah’s case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein. 2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the “rule in force” as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. 3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government muse be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14. 4. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government muse be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14. 4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately. 5. When there is no statutory duty case upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases. 37.1 The above-referred observations made in the fifteen decisions that have distinguished Rangaiah’s case demonstrate that the wide principle enunciated there is subsequently watered-down. Almost all the decisions that distinguished Rangaiah hold that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of law that existed on the date when they arose. This only implies that decision in Rangaiah is confined to the facts of that case. 37.2 The decision in Deepak Agarwal (Supra) is a complete departure from the principle in Rangaiah, in as much as the Court has held that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rule. That is the rule in force on the date the consideration takes place. This enunciation is followed in many subsequent decisions including that of Union of India v. Krishna Kumar (supra). In fact, in Krishna Kumar Court held that there is only a “right to be considered for promotion in accordance with rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion take place”. 37.3 The consistent findings in these fifteen decisions that Rangaiah’s case must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date which they arose, compels us to conclude that the decision in Rangaiah is impliedly overruled. However, as there is no declaration of law to this effect, it continues to be cited as precedent and this Court has been distinguishing it on some ground or the other, as we have indicated hereinabove. For clarity and certainly, it is, therefore, necessary for us to hold; (a) The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao that, “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 services under the Union and the States under part XIV of the Constitution. It is hereby overruled. (b) The rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services.” 16. As regards application of the principles as culled out to the facts of that case, i.e. Raj Kumar’s case (supra), it was held that the view taken by this Court that the vacancies occurring before the amendment of Rules on 25.11.2006, were required to be filled-up or governed by the 1966 Rules, was erroneous, as 2006 Rules governing services of the respondents came into force immediately after they were notified. There was no provision in the said Rules to enable the respondents to be considered as per 1966 Rules. 17. Meaning thereby that it is by now well settled that there is no Rule of universal application that the vacancies must be filled-up on the basis of law which existed on the date when these arose. 18. Faced with this, learned counsel for the respective petitioners would argue that the respondents ought to have made provisions for one time relaxation in essential qualification to those of the candidates who were eligible under 2004 Rules and had become ineligible only on account of the amendment carried out in the year 2012 and thereafter in the year 2020. 19. For this purpose, strong reliance is placed on communication sent by the Director of Health Services to the Director Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “To The Director, Technical Education Vocational & Industrial Training, H.P. Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Dated Shimla-9, Sub: Regarding essential qualification for the recruitment of Sr. Laboratory Technician. Sir, Kindly refer to your office letter No. STV(IT) HP(7)- 1/SCVT-PM 24894 dated 13-09-2007 on the subject cited above. Laboratory Technician. Sir, Kindly refer to your office letter No. STV(IT) HP(7)- 1/SCVT-PM 24894 dated 13-09-2007 on the subject cited above. In this context, it is submitted that Govt. vide notification No. Health-A-A-(3)-3/96 dated 16- 12-2004 has made the fresh recruitment and promotion rules for the post of Sr. Laboratory Technician (Class-III Non. Gazetted) in the Department of Health and Welfare HP. The essential qualification as per latest R&P Rules for the post is as under: (i) 10 plus 2 with Science or its equivalent from a recognized Board of School education/University. (ii) Should possess Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from an Institution recognized by the State/Central Govt. In this regard it is mentioned here that Govt. vide letter No. health-A-B(2)-3/2003-(L) dated 17.09.2007 has granted one time relaxation in essential qualification in the R&P Rules for the post of Sr. Laboratory Technician as on 13-9-2007 who are Matric with diploma in Laboratory Technology from a recognized Institute. It has been further decided by the Govt. to give relaxation to all persons who have done Diploma in the respective field with Matric as on 13-9- 2007. These persons would be eligible to appear against further vacancies also. However, they have to get themselves registered with the Para Medical Council by 31-12-2007 to avail of this relaxation. The Department has conducted the interviews for filling up of 175 posts of Sr. Laboratory Technician in the H&FW, HP after advertising these posts in the two leading News Papers by giving the opportunity to avail the relaxation in essential qualification in R&P Rules for the post who are Matric with Diploma in Laboratory Technology. Yours faithfully. Sd/- Director of Health Services Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar” 20. We however, find no merit in this contention for the simple reason that granting relaxation in R&P Rules is the sole prerogative of the competent authority, i.e. the employer. Moreover, the prerogative writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct the respondents to act contrary to R&P Rules or act beyond the powers flowing from the applicable Rules. 21. It is then contended by learned counsel for the respective petitioners that expert committee constituted by the State Government in the present case was only to consider the case relating to pay scales and staffing pattern consequent upon the implementation of the revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006, as is evident from the reply filed by the respondents. 22. 21. It is then contended by learned counsel for the respective petitioners that expert committee constituted by the State Government in the present case was only to consider the case relating to pay scales and staffing pattern consequent upon the implementation of the revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006, as is evident from the reply filed by the respondents. 22. It is further argued by learned counsel for the respective petitioners that under the garb of revision of pay scales and staffing pattern, the Rules could not have been amended. Strong reliance in support of such contention is placed upon paragraph 2 of the reply filed in the lead case, being CWP No. 1002/2020, which reads as under:- “That it is submitted that the State Government had constituted an expert committee to consider all cases relating to pay scales and staffing pattern consequent upon the implementation of the revised pay scales w.e.f 01.01.2006. It is added that while considering the post based revision of pay structures/grade pays in respect of State Government employees working in the categories of Senior Laboratory Technician and Chief Laboratory Technician in the Health and Family Welfare Department the expert committee as constituted had specifically recommended that “the Health and Family Welfare Department shall change the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the posts of Senior Laboratory Technician and Chief Laboratory Technician considering them at par with the categories of Medical Laboratory Technician (MLT) Grade-II, and Medical Laboratory Technician (MLT) Grade-I, respectively in Punjab for granting the pay structures/Grade pays to future recruitments/promotions with further recommendation that accordingly, the nomenclature of post of Senior Laboratory Technician will be Medical Laboratory Technician in future.” It is added that the above said recommendation of the Expert Committee having duly been approved by the Council of Ministers had all the sanctity of law. Accordingly, the instructions were issued by the Government vide letter dated 20.07.2013 for taking necessary action to amend the Recruitment and Promotion rules of the post concerned, attested photocopy of which letter alongwith its typed version is placed on record as Annexure R-1, R-1/T for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.” 23. Accordingly, the instructions were issued by the Government vide letter dated 20.07.2013 for taking necessary action to amend the Recruitment and Promotion rules of the post concerned, attested photocopy of which letter alongwith its typed version is placed on record as Annexure R-1, R-1/T for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.” 23. We are again not impressed by the contention of the petitioners because it has come in the reply filed by the respondents that the expert committee, as had been constituted, had specifically recommended that the Health and Family Welfare Department should change the R&P Rules of the posts of Senior Laboratory Technician and Chief Laboratory Technician considering them at par with the categories of Medical Laboratory Technician (MLT) Grade-II and Medical Laboratory Technician (MLT) Grade-I, respectively on Punjab Pattern. 24. Once that be so, obviously then it cannot be held that the expert committee exceeded its authority. 25. The learned counsel for the respective petitioners would then argue that the action of the respondents is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. However, we find these arguments to be ill-founded and fallacious as at no stage, the petitioner can be said to have been discriminated. 26. That apart, it is well settled that questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including the avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion of impose itself by substituting its view for that of the State. 27 Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the Rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. 28. 27 Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the Rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. 28. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation, as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. 29. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. 30. In taking this view, we are duly supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and others Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others case, (2003) 2 SCC 632, paragraph 10 whereof reads as under:- “10…...Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” 31. Further, in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “59. The creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restricting of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection, etc. are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Although the decision of the employer to create or abolish posts or cadres or to prescribe the source or mode of recruitment and laying down the qualification, etc. is not immune from judicial review, the Court will always be extremely cautious and circumspect in tinkering with the exercise of discretion by the employer. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post or number of posts be created or filled by a particular mode of recruitment. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by malafides.” 32. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by malafides.” 32. In Chandigarh Administration through the Director Public Instructions (Colleges) Chandigarh vs. Usha Kheterpal Wale and others, (2011) 9 SCC 645 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “22. It is now well settled that it is for the rulemaking authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. (See J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P. and P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General). In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of Phd is unreasonable.” 33. In State of Gujarat and others vs. Arvind kumar T. Tiwari and another, (2012) 9 SCC 545 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “10. The appointing authority is competent to fix a higher score for selection, than the one required to be attained for mere eligibility, but by way of its natural corollary, it cannot be taken to mean that eligibility/norms fixed by the statute or rules can be relaxed for this purpose to the extent that, the same may be lower than the ones fixed by the statute. In a particular case, where it is so required, relaxation of even educational qualification(s) may be permissible, provided that the rules empower the authority to relax such eligibility in general, or with regard to an individual case or class of cases of undue hardship. However, the said power should be exercised for justifiable reasons and it must not be exercised arbitrarily, only to favour an individual. However, the said power should be exercised for justifiable reasons and it must not be exercised arbitrarily, only to favour an individual. The power to relax the recruitment rules or any other rule made by the State Government/Authority is conferred upon the Government/Authority to meet any emergent situation where injustice might have been caused or, is likely to be caused to any person or class of persons or, where the working of the said rules might have become impossible. (Vide: State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra Marwaha, J.C. Yadav v. State of Haryana, and Ashok Kumar Uppal v. State of J & K.) 11. The courts and tribunal do not have the power to issue direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation of eligibility or in contravention thereof. In State of M.P. & Anr. v. Dharam Bir, this Court while dealing with a similar issue rejected the plea of humanitarian grounds and held as under: (SCC p. 175, para 31) “31....... The courts as also the tribunal have no power to override the mandatory provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration that a person, though not possessing the essential educational qualifications, should be allowed to continue on the post merely on the basis of his experience. Such an order would amount to altering or amending the statutory provisions made by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution.” 12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be the subject matter of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature of service, for which appointments are to be made, or has no rational nexus with the object(s) sought to be achieved by the statute. Such eligibility can be changed even for the purpose of promotion, unilaterally and the person seeking such promotion cannot raise the grievance that he should be governed only by the rules existing, when he joined service. In the matter of appointments, the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must meet the requirement of eligibility etc. The court should therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the appointments so made, or the rejection of a candidature is found to have been done at the cost of ‘fair play’, ‘good conscious’ and ‘equity’. The court should therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the appointments so made, or the rejection of a candidature is found to have been done at the cost of ‘fair play’, ‘good conscious’ and ‘equity’. (Vide: State of J & K v. Shiv Ram Sharma and Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab.) 14. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules is, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegibility and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (See: Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal and Pramod Kumar vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission.)” 34. Noticeably, here the petitioners are not even employees of the respondents and, therefore, they have no right to assail the action of the respondents in carrying out amendment in the Rules. 35. Lastly, it is contended by the petitioners that they had legitimate expectation of being appointed. 36. To say the least, plea raised by the petitioners is fallacious. As mere acquiring of qualification at a relevant point of time cannot give rise to an expectation, much less, legitimate expectation of appointment. 37. As observed above, the petitioners are not even the employees of the State Government and in terms of P.U. Joshi’s case (supra), even a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter or bring into force new Rules relating to even existing service. The State is well within its right to amend the Rules especially when the competition is increasing day by day of which, judicial notice can be taken by this Court. 38. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.