ORDER : Ramesh Sinha, J. Heard Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondent. 1. The present writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.123/2013, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner therein has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to provide reservation in promotions after undertaking the process of identification of post (s) under Section 32 of the Act, 1995 as per the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Siddaraju and Leesamma Joseph and thereafter consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Welfare/Personnel in E-1 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.123/2013 before the learned Single Bench on the ground that he being the Junior Data Entry Operator (non Executive cadre) working in the SECL, Hasdeo Area, District Korea applied for the promotional post of Welfare/Personnel in E-1 pursuant to the notification dated 08.03.2010 under physically handicapped quota (general), but his candidature for promotion on the said post was not considered against physically handicapped category and the same was rejected, against which he filed writ-petition before the learned Single Judge and the same has been allowed. The appellants strongly opposed the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition on the ground that the existing policy or guideline of the Government of India does not provide for any reservation for physically handicapped person on departmental promotion from non executive cadre to executive cadre, as such the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. It was further contended by the appellants that the notification dated 08.03.2010 was meant for promotion on selection of existing non-executive cadre employees from non executive cadre to executive cadre. It was not a direct recruitment, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for promotion. 3. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the respondent and observed in para 20 as under:- “20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It was not a direct recruitment, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for promotion. 3. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the respondent and observed in para 20 as under:- “20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent SECL is directed to provide reservation in promotions after undertaking the process of identification of post(s) under Section 32 of the Act of 1995 as per the judgments of their Lordships of the Supreme Court noticed herein-above in Rajeev Kumar Gupta (supra), Siddaraju (supra) and Leesamma Joseph’s case (supra), and thereafter to consider the case of the petitioner. The above-stated exercise be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to cost(s).” 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order placed his reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Siddaraju and Leesamma Joseph, but these judgments are different on facts as well as law as compared to the present case. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is not applicable in the present case. The promotion was not denied to the petitioner on the ground of his disability alone but rather because he did not secure the minimum specified marks as specified for Internal Departmental Promotion. The learned Single Judge further erred in ignoring the existing rules and orders applicable on the date of advertisement issued in the year 2010. The law operational at the time of issuance of advertisement for promotion in the year 2010 was DOPT memorandum dated 29.12.2005, which does not prescribe reservations in promotions for differently abled persons and all the appointments made pursuant to the advertisement were made in accordance with the modalities specified under the said memorandum. The judgments relied by the learned Single Judge were subsequent to the advertisement and didnot represent the law applicable at the time of advertisement as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Marripati Nagaraja and others vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported (2007) 11 SCC 522 . The judgments relied by the learned Single Judge were subsequent to the advertisement and didnot represent the law applicable at the time of advertisement as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Marripati Nagaraja and others vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported (2007) 11 SCC 522 . He further submits that the subsequent notification/ memorandum dated 20.03.2014 does not have retrospective application, as there is no clause for its application retrospectively and therefore had only prospective applicability. The petitioner has not challenged the DOPT notification dated 29.12.2005 nor has challenged the advertisement so issued for internal departmental promotion. The order passed by the learned Single Judge has the effect of unsettling various promotions granted from the date of advertisement till the order was passed. Any adverse action against people already employed would also entail violation of their rights more so because none of them were made party to the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge did not consider the factum of the present case in its entirety and even otherwise the law operational at the time of issuance of advertisement was duly complied with, as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of N. T. Devin Katti and others vsKarnataka Public Service Commission and others, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 157 , Marripati Nagaraja and others vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 522 , Union of India vs Devendra Kumar Pant and others, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 546 , Kailash Chand Sharma vs State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 562 and in the matter of K. Madhava Reddy and others vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 537 . 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly decided the petition in favour of the respondent. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Manoj Parihar and others vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 560, Govt. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Manoj Parihar and others vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 560, Govt. Of India vs Ravi Prakash Gupta, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 626 , Union of India vs National Federation of the Blind, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 772 , State of Kerala and others vs Leesamma Joseph, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 208 , Rajeev Kumar Gupta vs Union of India, reported in (2016) 13 SCC 153 and in the matter of Sidda Raju vs State of Karnataka and others, reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 45. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 7. The learned Single Judge has discussed the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held in para 19 as under:- “19. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the above-stated legal position, it is quite vivid that the only reason for not considering the petitioner’s case against physically handicapped quota for the promotional post of Welfare / Personnel in E-1 is, Section 33 of the Act of 1995, which mandates reservation to persons with disabilities, is not applicable to promotions. The said finding is absolutely incorrect and runs contrary to the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in this regard in Rajeev Kumar Gupta (supra), Siddaraju (supra) and Leesamma Joseph’s case (supra) in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that reservation contemplated under Section 33 of the Act of 1995 is applicable to promotions also and accordingly, the act of the respondent SECL in holding that reservation under Section 33 of the Act is not applicable to promotions, is illegal and arbitrary.” 8. In the case in hand, the petitioner being the Junior Data Entry Operator (non Executive cadre) working in the SECL, Hasdeo Area, District Korea applied for the promotional post of Welfare/Personnel in E-1 pursuant to the notification dated 08.03.2010 under physically handicapped quota (general), but his candidature for promotion on the said post was not considered against physically handicapped category and the same was rejected. Before learned Single Judge, the appellants filed an affidavit deposing that the petitioner’s case was not considered for promotion on the post of Welfare/Personal in E-1 against the physically handicapped category for the reason that there was no provision for reservation through direct recruitment in promotion from non executive cadre to executive cadre for the post of Welfare/Personal in E-1 at the relevant point of time. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of N. T. Devin Katti (supra) held in para 11 as under:- “11. There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing rules or government orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing rules and government orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication; if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant rules and orders. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant rules and orders. Let there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection is accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of K. Madhava Reddy (supra) held in paras 7 & 8 as under:- “7. Aggrieved by the G.O.Ms. some of the employees approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for redressal. Their grievance primarily was that since the post of Assistant Labour Officer is a zonal post, employees working in the respective zones alone were entitled to be included in the feeding channel. Inclusion of other categories from outside the zone in the feeding channel for purposes of promotion or appointment by transfer was offensive to paras 3(3) and 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cards and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 referred to hereinabove as the Presidential Order against the employees. These petitions were partly allowed by the Tribunal in terms of its order dated 7th March, 2003 and G.O.M. No.14, dated 26th November, 1994, as amended by G.O.M. No.22 dated 9th May, 1996 struck down as unconstitutional to the extent the same provided a channel for Senior-Assistant and Senior Stenographer in Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service working in the Head Offices of Labour Department and those in Factories and Boiler Departments besides those in the Subordinate Offices in the said Departments for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Labour Officer. The Tribunal also struck down related provisions in the impugned G.O.Ms. stipulating quota and rotation etc. for these categories as being in violation of the Presidential Order with a direction that the respondents shall not give effect to the said provisions. The Tribunal also struck down related provisions in the impugned G.O.Ms. stipulating quota and rotation etc. for these categories as being in violation of the Presidential Order with a direction that the respondents shall not give effect to the said provisions. Having said that the Tribunal directed that the striking down of the impugned G.O.Ms. would only be prospective and that any action taken in compliance with the said Rules till 7th November, 2001 shall not be disturbed nor any employee promoted on the basis of the legal position that prevailed earlier to the decision of this Court in V. Jagannadha Rao’s case (supra) be reverted. 8. The aggrieved employees, who had approached the Tribunal having succeeded but only in part, filed Writ Petitions No.6163 and 6068 of 2004 whereby they challenged the judgment of the Tribunal to the extent it saved the promotions already made on the basis of the impugned G.O.Ms. Writ Petition No.16890 of 2006 was also filed against the very same judgment by some of the employees who felt aggrieved by the view taken by the Tribunal that the impugned G.O.Ms. were in violation of the Presidential Order hence unconstitutional. A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has, in terms of the judgment and order under challenge before us, allowed Writ Petitions No.6123 and 6068 of 2004 but dismissed Writ Petition No.16890 of 2006 relying upon certain decisions rendered by this Court. The High Court has taken the view that the doctrine of prospective overruling could be invoked only by the Apex Court and not by other Court including High Courts exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The net effect of the view taken by the High Court, therefore, is that not only are the impugned G.O.M. held to be unconstitutional, but any action taken pursuant thereto is also declared to be unconstitutional.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Marripati Nagaraja (supra) held in para 14 as under:- “14. It is now a well settled principle of law that the rules which would be applicable for selecting the candidates would be the one which were prevailing at the time of the notification. It is also equally well settled that the State may, subject to constitutional limitations, amend the rule with retrospective effect” 12. It is now a well settled principle of law that the rules which would be applicable for selecting the candidates would be the one which were prevailing at the time of the notification. It is also equally well settled that the State may, subject to constitutional limitations, amend the rule with retrospective effect” 12. It is an admitted position in the present case that the respondent applied for promotional post of Welfare/ Personnel in E-1 pursuant to the notification dated 08.03.2010 under physically handicapped quota (general), but there was no such reservation on the said post as per the existing rules, as such the candidature of the respondent was rejected. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which were passed after the notifications were already issued in the year 2015, 2016, 2020 & 2021. One more important aspect is also to be kept in mind that all other candidates, who were given promotion at the relevant point of time, were not made party to the petition. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the existing rules at the relevant point of time and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.10.2021 is hereby set aside.