JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have the sought following reliefs: i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for records and declare/quash Rule -5 (2), Rule -24 (a) & (b), Rule-25, 25, Schedule - 6 Rule - 1& 7& 8, Schedule - 7 Rule - 1& 7 of Uttarakhand Police Constable and Head Constable (Civil Police, Intelligence and Armed Police) Service Rules, 2018 and Rule - 2 of 2019 Amendment (ANNEXURE NO.1.) ultra vires to the Constitution of India hence illegal. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for records and declare/ quash Rule 5, Rule 5 A (3) (a) of Uttarakhand Police Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police and Intelligence) Service Rules, 2018 (ANNEXURE NO.1.) ultra vires to the Constitution of India hence illegal. iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fill all posts of Head Constable from Constable, only by way of departmental seniority basis of Constables, excluding ineligible candidates (that is to say hundred percent by way of promotion). iv. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote Head-Constable to Sub- Inspector by way of 50% on seniority basis and 50% on open direct entry basis out of the total vacancy. 2. Petitioners are serving as Constable in Civil Police as well as Intelligence Branch. The next promotional post available to Constables is that of Head Constable. Head Constables can be promoted as SubInspectors. Service Rules for Constables, Head Constables and Sub-Inspectors of Police were framed in the year 2018 and earlier appointments were made to these posts as per Executive Instructions issued from time to time. 3. According to petitioners, their chance of promotion have been reduced after enforcement of Service Rules, therefore, they have prayed that relevant provisions of Service Rules be declared ultra vires to the Constitution. One of their grievance is that under the Rules, Constables serving in Civil Police and Intelligence Branch, are not treated as eligible for promotion against the post of Head Constable/Sub-Inspector in Armed Police. They have also questioned the parameters for physical efficiency test laid down for promotion to the post of Head Constable in Armed Police. One of their grievance is that under the Rules, Constables serving in Civil Police and Intelligence Branch, are not treated as eligible for promotion against the post of Head Constable/Sub-Inspector in Armed Police. They have also questioned the parameters for physical efficiency test laid down for promotion to the post of Head Constable in Armed Police. According to them, Constables serving in Armed Police have more chance of promotion compared to Constables serving in Civil Police and Intelligence Branch. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3, it is stated that before enforcement of 2018 Service Rules also, the post of Head Constable and Sub-Inspector in Armed Police were available for promotion only to personnel serving in Armed Police; members of Civil Police and Intelligence Branch were not eligible for promotion in Armed Police. It is further stated that chance of promotion is not an incidence of service and a Government servant has a right to be considered for promotion only which has not been denied to the petitioners. It is further stated that for promotion to the post of Head Constable in Armed Police, a Constable must have Standard Level Training of Drill Musketry, which is possessed by Constable in Armed Police only, as they participate in Drill Musketry in routine manner. Para 16 to 21 of the counter affidavit are reproduced below for ready reference:- “16. That by way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the certain provisions of Rules of 2018 for the reason that instead of quota provided for Limited Department Examination for recruitment on the post of Head Constable and Sub Inspector, the recruitment should be made on the basis of seniority only on the ground that the same reduces the chances of promotion. In this regard it is submitted that in any Disciplinary Force, the criteria of promotion is not only based on seniority but on other factors considering the recruitment of Force such as merit, merit-cum-seniority, mental ability, physical fitness etc. Furthermore, the chance of promotion is not an incident of service and an individual have only right to be considered for promotion. 17. Furthermore, the chance of promotion is not an incident of service and an individual have only right to be considered for promotion. 17. That it is submitted that the Constable and Head Constable (civil Police, Intelligence Armed Police) Rules of 2018 challenged in the present writ petition have been made by the Government of Uttarakhand in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub Section (1) of Section 87 of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 and the mere fact that the 2018 Rules prescribes separate quota of 50% for Departmental Limited Examination and 50% on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit in respect of promotion on the post of Head Constable would not render the said Rules ultra-vires to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since the said Rules apply uniformly to all persons appointed to the post of Constable in the Subordinate Rank Police Services. 18. That similarity for recruitment on the post of Sub Inspector the quota of 33% provided for Departmental Limited Examination, 33% by way of seniority and 34% by direct recruitment cannot be said to be ultra-vires to Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India in as much as mental and physical fitness on the post of Sub Inspector is an essential requirement considering the nature of work. 19. That since promotion is essentially a management prerogative and necessarily involves matter of choice, as such Rules of 2018 providing separate quota for direct recruitment, Departmental Limited Examination and Seniority on the post of Sub Inspector and in the matter of Head Constable, quota prescribed on the basis seniority of personnel and Departmental Limited Examination would not render the said Rules ultra-vires to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since the said Rules apply uniformly to all persons eligible for recruitment. Furthermore, the stipulation of maximum age of 45 years for promotion on the post of Head Constable has rational in as much as the nature of work and responsibility of the post Head Constable require both physical and mental fitness. Similar provisions have been provided for recruitment on the post of Sub Inspector (Ranker) through Departmental Limited Examination. 20. That it is submitted that an employee has no right to be promoted, he has a right to be considered for promotion. Similar provisions have been provided for recruitment on the post of Sub Inspector (Ranker) through Departmental Limited Examination. 20. That it is submitted that an employee has no right to be promoted, he has a right to be considered for promotion. Mere chance of promotion is not a condition of service and fixing qualification, eligibility criteria and norms for promotion is within the domain the legislature or the executive to decide what Rules or policy would serve the purpose best. 21. That the petitioners have further contended that Rules impugned are violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it reduces the promotional avenues in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner is misconceived in as much as the slitting of quota is made to achieve the object of Disciplinary Force, which require physically and mentally fit personnel considering the nature of work and responsibilities required for facing and tackling unforeseen situations.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is well settled that though employment under the Government like under any other master may have a contractual origin, the Government servant acquires a status' on appointment to his office. As a result, his rights and obligations are liable to be determined under statutory or constitutional authority which for, its exercise, requires no reciprocal consent. The Government can alter the terms and conditions of its employees unilaterally and though in modern times consensus in matters relating to public services is often attempted to be achieved, consent is not a pre-condition for the validity of rules of service, the contractual origin of the service notwithstanding. Where a party seeks to impeach validity of a rule made by a competent authority on the ground that the rules offend Article 14, the burden is on him to plead and prove the infirmity. There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. The burden thus, is on the petitioners to set out facts necessary to sustain the plea of discrimination and to adduce "cogent and convincing evidence" to prove those facts for "there is a presumption that every factor which is relevant or material has been taken into account by the rule making authority while framing the Rules. The burden thus, is on the petitioners to set out facts necessary to sustain the plea of discrimination and to adduce "cogent and convincing evidence" to prove those facts for "there is a presumption that every factor which is relevant or material has been taken into account by the rule making authority while framing the Rules. Unless the classification is unjust on the face of it, the onus lies-upon the party attacking the classification to show by pleading the necessary material that the said classification is unreasonable and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 7. In the case of The State of Jammu & Kashmir vs Shri Triloki Nath Khosa & others, reported in 1974 (1) SCC 19 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “discrimination is the essence of classification and does violence to the constitutional guarantee of equality only if it rests on an unreasonable basis. It was, therefore, incumbent on the respondents to plead and show that the classification of Assistant Engineers into those who hold diplomas and those who hold degrees is unreasonable and bears no rational nexus with its purported object. Rather than do this, the respondents contented themselves by propounding an abstract theory that educational qualifications are germane at the stage of initial recruitment only. Omission to furnish the necessary particulars was construed by this Court in two cases as indicating that the plea of unlawful discrimination had no basis. Such an infirmity in pleadings led this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. to remand the matter to the High Court in order to enable the petitioner therein to amend its petition. Mr. Garg asked for a remand so that the respondents could have an opportunity to plead the necessary facts but we declined to do so as we did not propose to allow the appeal on the narrow ground that the respondents' plea of discrimination was inadequate.” 8. Mr. Garg asked for a remand so that the respondents could have an opportunity to plead the necessary facts but we declined to do so as we did not propose to allow the appeal on the narrow ground that the respondents' plea of discrimination was inadequate.” 8. In the case of P.U. Joshi & others vs Accountant General, Ahemdabad & others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “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 and 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/sub-struction 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 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.” 9. In the case of State of Uttarakhand & others vs S.K. Singh & others, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 49 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “31. We have noticed another important aspect, i.e., that the direct recruitment to the post of AE required a candidate to be a Degreeholder. 50% of the posts were reserved for Degree-holding direct recruits. In the 50% promotion quota, a 10% promotion quota was carved out, leaving only 40% for promotion through the normal route. Possibly with the intention of obviating any grievance which the promotees may have, the normal promotion route was sought to be maintained at 50%, without any accelerated promotion in that portion, by bringing in 10% from the direct recruitment quota to the promotion quota, and that being utilised for accelerated promotion, for promotees with a Degree. Had this quota not been there at all, whether earlier or later, but the direct recruitment in promotion quota had been maintained in equal ratio, the Diplomaholders could, in any case, have had no grievance. The bringing forth from the direct recruitment quota (for which the qualification is the Degree) to the promotion quota and giving that through accelerated promotion for such persons who have a degree can, thus, hardly be said to have any intrinsic defects which could violate Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.” 10. It is not the case of petitioners that their right to be considered for promotion has been altogether taken away. According to them, Constables serving in Armed Police have more avenues for promotion compared to Constables serving in other two branches. Respondents have defended the Rules by contending that Constable/Head Constable serving in Armed Police have Standard Level Training of Drill Musketry, therefore, they alone are eligible for promotion to next higher post of Armed Police. Learned counsel for petitioners did not address on the relevance or otherwise of Drill Musketry Training for promotion to higher posts in Armed Police. 11. State Government has a right to decide the qualification needed for appointment/promotion to a particular post and scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited. 12. Learned counsel for petitioners did not address on the relevance or otherwise of Drill Musketry Training for promotion to higher posts in Armed Police. 11. State Government has a right to decide the qualification needed for appointment/promotion to a particular post and scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited. 12. Since petitioners do not have any vested right of promotion and their right to be considered for promotion has not been denied, therefore, in view of the law, as declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. 13. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.