JUDGMENT : P. KRISHNA KUMAR, J. 1. The short question to be decided in this case is, for the purpose of promotion, whether the Beat Forest Officers (formerly called Forest Guards) advised for appointment under the Special Rules for Kerala Forest Subordinate Service, 1962, have to be governed by the said Rules or the subsequently amended Rule, which prescribes additional qualifications. The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of the saving clause in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2014, which reads as follows: “Savings: Nothing contained in these rules will adversely affect those who are already in service in accordance with the rules and orders then in force.” 2. The subordinate service of the Forest Department was originally governed by the Special Rules for the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service, 1962 (hereinafter called “1962 Rules”). With effect from 30.08.2010, the said Rule was replaced by the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service Special Rules, 2010 (“2010 Rules” for short). Later, as per the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2014 (for short “2014 Amendment Rules”), the nomenclature of certain posts (the post of Forest Guard is renamed as “Beat Forest Officer” and the “Forester” as “Section Forest Officer”), the qualification for the entry-level and promotion posts and method of appointment of a few posts in the said service, etc. have been further modified. Notably, it is provided in the 2014 Amendment Rules that, for getting promotion to the post of the Section Forest Officer, the Beat Forest Officer should pass the following departmental tests: (1) Forest Test for Clerical and Protective Staff (2) Manual of Office Procedure. It is also provided that this amendment shall be deemed to have come into effect from 30.08.2010 [See Rule 2(4)(ii)]. Inter alia, the 2014 Amendment Rues further introduced the above said saving clause as well. 3. The petitioners in OP (KAT) 14/2024 were appointed on 10.08.2010 and were directed to appear for training on 02.09.2010 in the Forest School, Arippa. The 1st respondent joined the service on 30.09.2010. The 1st respondent is serial No. 186 in the seniority list, whereas the petitioners are ranked in between serial Nos. 158 and 173. The contention of the 1st respondent is that the said petitioners did not acquire the test qualification for promotion and hence the order dated 05/08/2022 by which they were given promotion is liable to be set aside. The 1st respondent is serial No. 186 in the seniority list, whereas the petitioners are ranked in between serial Nos. 158 and 173. The contention of the 1st respondent is that the said petitioners did not acquire the test qualification for promotion and hence the order dated 05/08/2022 by which they were given promotion is liable to be set aside. The State as well as the petitioners argue that, by virtue of the saving clause, those who were appointed prior to the 2014 Amendment Rules will be governed by the 1962 Rules or the 2010 Rules, and hence the subsequently introduced clause requiring additional qualifications for promotion will not curtail their rights. 4. During the time of hearing, Adv. Sri. Sandesh Raja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in O.P. (KAT) No. 15/2024 argued that the petitioners could have joined in the service much before the date of commencement of 2010 Rules, but they were prevented by the Malayattoor Divisional Forest Officer and instead, they were asked to report for training on 2.9.2010 before the Principal, Kerala Forest School, Arippa, whereas the training was not prescribed in the then existing Rules. This contention is refuted by Adv. Prasanth S. learned counsel for the 1st respondent, by resorting to Rule 2(1) of KS & SSR, where it is stated that a person is said to be “appointed to a service” when in accordance with the rules applicable at the time, he discharges for the first time the duties of a post borne on the cadre of such service or commences the probation, instruction or training prescribed for members thereof, and thus the petitioners could be considered as appointed to service only on 2.9.2010. 5. t is beyond any dispute that there is no vested right to promotion. The right is only to be considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules prevailing on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place. [See Union of India and Others v. Krishna Kumar and Others, 2019 KHC 2397, Subramonian Namboodiri v. State of Kerala, 1980 KHC 226 and Rajappan v. Vasudevan Nair, 2022 (2) KLT 273]. The right is only to be considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules prevailing on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place. [See Union of India and Others v. Krishna Kumar and Others, 2019 KHC 2397, Subramonian Namboodiri v. State of Kerala, 1980 KHC 226 and Rajappan v. Vasudevan Nair, 2022 (2) KLT 273]. Therefore, when the Special Rules are modified subsequent to the appointment of the employees as regards their qualification for promotion, the rule in force on the date of consideration for promotion is the crucial one and not the one which was in force on the date when the employees were advised for appointment or on the date of actual appointment to the service. 6. Nevertheless, it is open to the Government to exclude a category or group of officers from the necessity of acquiring the prescribed qualifications for the purpose of promotion, in the public interest. The exact question to be decided now is whether the saving clause referred to above serves that purpose. 7. As stated at first, the 2014 Amendment Rules brought several changes to the 2010 Rules, including the clauses prescribing additional qualifications for several posts, a new method of appointment, conditions relating to promotion, etc. In the absence of the said saving clause, a question would have arisen naturally as to whether the existing employees who did not possess the additionally prescribed qualifications, were entitled to continue in the service. The saving clause clearly protects the vested rights of the employees in continuing their existing positions, but it is conspicuously silent as to their eligibility for further promotions in the future. 8. It is also to be noted that some of the amended provisions expressly protect the interest of those who have entered the service before 30.08.2010, for the purpose of promotion or by transfer appointment to the category of Section/Beat Forest Officer, as regards their basic academic qualification [See Rule 2(4)(iv)]. The clause by which the test qualification is made mandatory does not give any relaxation to the existing employees. What appears from the saving clause is that the protection granted thereby is for holding the respective posts despite having the qualifications prescribed for the respective posts as per the amended provisions. 9. The clause by which the test qualification is made mandatory does not give any relaxation to the existing employees. What appears from the saving clause is that the protection granted thereby is for holding the respective posts despite having the qualifications prescribed for the respective posts as per the amended provisions. 9. However, the learned Government Pleader persuasively argued that the 1st respondent also got relaxation from the rigour of the provisions of the 2010 Rules through Ext.P7 Government Order dated 27/11/2013, and thus now he cannot be heard to contend otherwise. In fact, the said order gives a broad understanding of the circumstances under which the saving clause was introduced by the Government. The order states that, as per the 2010 Rules, for declaration of probation, the Beat Forest Officers have to clear the department test and the one-year guard training which was not mandated in the 1962 Rules. The Government Order further reads that even those who were appointed as per the 1962 Rules are also required to acquire the qualifications prescribed by the 2010 Rules. However, the Chief Forest Conservator made a request to the Government that the department was unable to give mandatory training to all the Beat Forest Officers who entered into the service in accordance with the 1962 Rules and hence the probation of those officers might be made without insisting on the new requirement. Accordingly, the Government decided to relax the said requirements for the successful completion of probation of those who had joined in service as per the 1962 Rules. Pertinently, it is further noted in Ext.P7 that the Government had initiated steps for inserting a saving clause for protecting those who were appointed under the 1962 Rules. 10. It is thus evident that in the absence of the saving clause, even those who had been appointed under the old Rules would have been required to acquire additional qualifications to continue in their respective posts, and the saving clause was brought to the Rules to avoid such contingencies. However, there is no indication anywhere in the saving clause or the amended Rules that the protection given by the saving clause would extend beyond that limit and will enable the appointees under the 1962 Rules or the 2010 Rules to acquire promotions without obtaining the newly prescribed additional qualifications. However, there is no indication anywhere in the saving clause or the amended Rules that the protection given by the saving clause would extend beyond that limit and will enable the appointees under the 1962 Rules or the 2010 Rules to acquire promotions without obtaining the newly prescribed additional qualifications. The saving clause, thus, cannot be extended to support the contentions raised by the petitioners herein. 11. Significantly, the saving clause in the 2014 Amendment Rules is identical to the saving clause in part II Rule 35 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (for short ‘KS&SSR’). In Subramonian Namboodiri v. State of Kerala, 1980 KLT 839 , this court has considered the scope and extent of the said saving clause and held that, it only protects the existing position of the person concerned and not that he would be entitled to promotions to higher posts in the future, on the basis of the past rules and orders. All that was sought to be protected through the saving clause in Rule 35 is the vested right of a person in the position that existed on the crucial date and not his/her expectation for further promotions in the future. 12. Rule 13A of the KS&SSR provides that where a pass in a departmental test is newly prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category of a service, a member who has not passed the test, but is otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment to such category, may, within two years of the introduction of the test, be appointed thereto temporarily, and if he/she does not clear the test in 3 years, shall be reverted. When the scheme of the KS&SSR is as described above, if the Special Rule intends to override the said scheme, it would have been specifically provided so. Therefore, it can be concluded that the saving clause in the Kerala Forest Subordinate Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2014, does not confer any right on the appointees under the earlier Rules to get promoted without obtaining the newly provided qualifications. 13. In the light of the above discussion, we find no illegality or error of law or facts in the order impugned. In fact, the reasons provided by the Tribunal are well founded. 14. Accordingly, the original petitions are dismissed.