Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1868 (GUJ)

Jaydev Babubhai Jadeja v. State Of Gujarat

2024-10-08

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J. 1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms.Nidhi Vyas, learned A.G.P. waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. Heard Mr.Rahul Rajhans, learned advocate appearing for Ms.Rajvi Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Nidhi Vyas, learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos.1 to 5. 3. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition, and B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent authorities of subjecting the petitioner to appear in the departmental lower level examination to be conducted as per notification issued on 31.03.2015 and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner is exempted from the rule mandating the passing of lower level examination prescribed under Gujarat Civil Services (Conditions of Service relating to Departmental Examination) (General Rules), 2015. C. Pending, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant exemption to the petitioner from passing the departmental examination prescribed under Gujarat Civil Services (Conditions of Service relating to Departmental Examination) (General Rules), 2015 D. Ad-interim relief in terms of Paragraph 7(C) may be granted. E. Any other and further relief that may be deemed fit and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice. 4. The petitioner herein seeks exemption from appearing in the departmental examination for promotion from junior clerk to senior clerk. 5. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition read thus:- 5.1. The petitioner herein came to be appointed on 07.12.2004 as junior clerk, Class-III, Gujarat Police Department, junior clerk with the respondent department. Pursuant to the said appointment, the petitioner in order to get the regular appointment, was required to pass pre-service training examination. The petitioner passed the pre-service examination and was given regular appointment. As per the appointment order, which is duly produced at page 13, the petitioner was required to pass the departmental examination within stipulated time as per condition no.7 of the appointment order. 5.2. The petitioner passed the pre-service examination and was given regular appointment. As per the appointment order, which is duly produced at page 13, the petitioner was required to pass the departmental examination within stipulated time as per condition no.7 of the appointment order. 5.2. Pursuant to the Rules of 2010, the petitioner appeared in the lower level examination, which was conducted by the Gujarat Police Department from 02.01.2012 to 05.01.2012 whereby the petitioner cleared the said examination and was declared pass on 09.04.2012. 5.3. The petitioner herein also appeared in the higher level departmental examination, which was conducted by the respondent from 04.03.2013 to 07.03.2013 whereby, pursuant to the notification dated 30.04.2011, the petitioner was exempted from Paper I (Service Matters) and Paper II (Accounts Matter) and therefore he attempted for Paper III (Miscellaneous) and Paper IV (Departmental Matters- Gujarat Police Manual). 5.4. On 19.09.2013, the result of the higher level examination was declared by the respondent authorities whereby, the petitioner appeared in the examination but was declared as ‘Fail’ since he could not clear Paper IV (Departmental Matters- Gujarat Police Manual). Hence, the petitioner passed the lower level examination for increment but, failed to pass the higher level examination for promotion. 5.5. On 31.03.2015, the respondent no.2 issued a notification whereby, Gujarat Civil Services (Conditions of Service relating to departmental examination)(General) Rules, 2015 (Hereinafter referred as ‘Rules 2015’) came in to force amending existing rules for departmental examination. Pursuant to the said Rules 2015, the Junior Clerk in order to get eligible to the promotional post of Senior Clerk is required to pass lower level examination and senior clerks in order to get eligible to the promotional post of Head Clerk is required to pass higher level examination. However Rule 3(3) of the aforesaid rule state that where the person before the appointed date has passed the relevant departmental examination or has been exempted under the old rules from passing the relevant departmental examination, shall not be required to pass the said departmental examination. 5.6. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, whole new syllabus for lower level and higher level examinations was introduced and the petitioner once again was subject to appear in lower level examination for promotion under the new Rules of 2015 though, he has cleared the lower level examination as per the Rules of 2010. 5.7. 5.6. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification, whole new syllabus for lower level and higher level examinations was introduced and the petitioner once again was subject to appear in lower level examination for promotion under the new Rules of 2015 though, he has cleared the lower level examination as per the Rules of 2010. 5.7. On 09.09.2016 the respondent authorities informed the petitioner that the petitioner is required to fill-up the examination form and must appear in the examination which is going to be conducted under 2015 Rules, failing which, the petitioner would not be entitled to get the higher pay scale nor they would be considered for the promotional post. 5.8. It is the case of the petitioner that the decision of the respondent – authorities to apply the Rules as notified on 31.03.2015 to the petitioner, though the petitioner was appointed prior to the said Rules coming into force and the petitioner was subjected to departmental examination in the past on the basis of the relevant departmental rules, which were in force, is erroneous and the same would not be applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner would never be governed by the new Rules of 2015 and the rights, which came to be accrued for seeking higher pay scale of the promotional post or for seeking promotion on the basis of the relevant rules, which have remained in force at the time of the initial appointments of the petitioner, considering the proposition of law to the effect that the Rules which have remained in force at the time of appointment would apply in case of such appointees and any subsequent enactment of new Rules would never apply retrospectively. It is the case of the petitioner that the action of the respondent authorities of subjecting the petitioner to the aforesaid examination, which is prescribed on the basis of notification dated 31.03.2015 and taking the decision to the effect that unless and until the petitioner pass the examination under the new rules, the petitioner would not be eligible for promotion and, therefore, the said decision deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.9. 5.9. It is the case of the petitioner that even the instructions vide communication dated 09.09.2016 came to be published in the aforesaid regard wherein, the concerned respondent authorities informed the petitioner that the petitioner must fill-up the examination form and appear in the examination, which is going to be conducted under the Rules of 2015, failing which, the petitioner would not be entitled for the promotional post. The aforesaid decision is erroneous. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is exempted to appear for the lower level examination in view of the Rule 3(3) of Rules 2015. As per Rule 3(3), it is clear that the case of the petitioner, who has cleared the lower level examination in the year 2013, is under no legal obligation to clear the lower level examination under the new rules. 5.10. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner had appeared for the higher level examination but however, could not clear the same in 2013 and thereafter, the respondent authorities never conducted the said higher level examination under old rules 2010 after the said examination due to which, the petitioner could not get chance to re-attempt for the said examination and the petitioner could not be made to suffer due to the fault and gross negligence on part of the respondent authorities as the same would have cascading effect on the career of the petitioner. 5.11. It is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of the resolution dated 17.02.2006, the respondent authorities are required to take the said departmental examination twice in a calendar year. However, the same was not conducted by the respondent no.3 at regular intervals and, therefore, the petitioner could not be deprived of his rights and denied higher promotion or higher pay-scale on the ground of non-appearance in the higher level examination. The said resolution is duly produced at Annexure-H. 5.12. However, the same was not conducted by the respondent no.3 at regular intervals and, therefore, the petitioner could not be deprived of his rights and denied higher promotion or higher pay-scale on the ground of non-appearance in the higher level examination. The said resolution is duly produced at Annexure-H. 5.12. It is the case of the petitioner that the notification dated 31.03.2015 would not apply to the petitioner for the reason being that the petitioner has already cleared the lower level examination conducted as per the Rules 2010 which made the petitioner eligible for the higher pay scale and now subjecting the petitioner again to the same level examination to be conducted as per new rules 2015, failing which, the petitioner would not be eligible for promotion as well as the higher pay scale is baseless and arbitrary causing serious injustice to the petitioner. 5.13. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner after serving for 15 long years cannot be subjected to passing the examination under new rules altogether with the new syllabus different from that of the syllabus under the old rules 2010 and too with different subjects. The decision of the respondent authorities of subjecting the petitioner to appear in the examination again on the basis of the new rules 2015 failing which he would not be treated as eligible for higher pay scale or for promotion is illogical, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr.Rahul Rajhans, learned advocate for Ms.Rajvi Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the the petitioner is not required to pass any examination, much less, the examination which is prescribed under the Rules of 2015. It is submitted that the action of the respondent authorities of conducting the examination on the basis of the new rules qua the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 6.1. It is submitted that the resolution dated 17.02.2006, duly produced at Annexure-H page – 87 to 93 (relevant Clause 5) provides for undertaking departmental examination for promotions at-least twice in a calendar year. However, the same was never undertaken in the calendar year and the said GR was never followed as the examinations were not taken twice in a year but were taken after 2 or 3 years’ interval. 6.2. However, the same was never undertaken in the calendar year and the said GR was never followed as the examinations were not taken twice in a year but were taken after 2 or 3 years’ interval. 6.2. It is submitted that the relevant rules came to be published on 04.12.2010, duly produced at Annexure-B wherein, Rule 3(2)(a) provides that on passing of the examination, the junior clerks would be eligible to receive increments and Rule - 4 provides that upon passing of higher level examination, the concerned employees would be eligible for promotion to the promotional post of senior clerk. Rule - 10 provides that the standard of passing of examination shall be fifty percent of the total assigned marks for each paper. Rule 10(4) provides that unsuccessful candidate would be exempted from passing the examination of particular subject in the previous examination, if such incumbent has secured 60% or more marks in a particular paper. 6.3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that when any incumbent appears in examination papers as per example in 4 papers and is declared failed in 3 papers and is declared passed in one paper, then the candidate must get 60 or more marks out of 100 marks. 6.4. It is submitted that upon passing of Appendix-A examination at lower level, the junior clerk would become eligible for increment and on passing 4 papers of higher level examination under Appendix-B, the junior clerk would be eligible for promotion. It is submitted that the notification dated 30.04.2011 came to be published by the Home Department wherein, the statutory rules came to be amended, which provide that the junior clerk, who passes the lower level department examination, as prescribed in Appendix-A shall be exempted from passing paper nos.I and II of higher level departmental examination for promotion to the post of senior clerk, as prescribed in Appendix-B of the Rules of 2010. Hence, it is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner has cleared the lower level examination, the petitioner is exempted from clearing paper – I i.e. Service Matter (page 22) and Paper-II was prescribed as ‘Accounts Matters’, as Paper-II - forming part of Appendix-A (page No.23) of higher level examination. 6.5. Hence, it is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner has cleared the lower level examination, the petitioner is exempted from clearing paper – I i.e. Service Matter (page 22) and Paper-II was prescribed as ‘Accounts Matters’, as Paper-II - forming part of Appendix-A (page No.23) of higher level examination. 6.5. It is submitted that the petitioner had already passed the papers of Appendix-A i.e. lower level examination and was released increments and, therefore, as per the amended rules published through the notification dated 30.04.2011, the petitioner was deemed to have been exempted or passed and was not required to pass the examination of paper nos.I and II of higher level examination of Appendix-B. Thus, the petitioner was required to pass the paper no.III i.e. miscellaneous subjects and paper no.IV i.e. departmental matters as per Appendix-B of the 2010 notification. 6.6. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has already passed the paper of miscellaneous subjects as per Appendix-B of higher level examination under the Rules of 2010 since the petitioner has secured more than 60 marks in the aforesaid paper. Therefore, the question remains of passing only paper no.II - Gujarat Police Manual, which was originally paper No.IV of the higher level departmental examination under the Rules of 2010. 6.7. It is submitted that the Rules, which have come into effect from 31.03.2015 are prospective in nature and Rule 3(3) at pg.71 provides that any person has passed the relevant departmental examination before the appointed date i.e. before publication of the new rules i.e. before 31.03.2015 or has been exempted under the old rules from passing the relevant departmental examination, shall not be required to pass the departmental examination. It is submitted that in old rules, the aforesaid paper-IV i.e. Gujarat Police Manual, which remained as paper No.II in the old rules after exemption in paper No.I and paper No.II as per the 2011 amendment, the petitioner deemed to have been exempted from passing the remaining paper i.e. departmental matters, Gujarat Police Manual for higher level examination under old rules of 2010 and the same was the paper No.V of the new rules and, therefore, the petitioner deemed to have passed after exemption in respect of the aforesaid paper and, therefore, out of 4 papers under the old rules, the petitioner was granted exemption in the papers with the subjects namely, service matters, account matters and paper-IV which become paper No.II after 2011 amendment i.e. Departmental Matters, Gujarat Police Manual and the petitioner had passed Misc. subjects of higher level examination of old rules and, therefore, the petitioner deemed to have passed all the 4 papers of Appendix-B of 2010 for higher level examination and as per clause 3(3) Notification dated 31.03.2015, the petitioner is not required to pass any examination under new rules and is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of senior clerk. 6.8. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the payers, as prayed for, by the petitioner herein are such that the same be allowed and the action of the respondent – authorities of subjecting and treating the petitioner as eligible only on passing examination prescribed under the new rules i.e. the notification dated 31.03.2015, be declared as illegal. 7. Ms.Nidhi Vyas, learned A.G.P. for the respondent – State vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions made by Mr.Rahul Rajhans, learned advocate appearing for Ms.Rajvi Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted that the prayers, as prayed for, in the present petition are such that the same may not be granted. It is submitted that the recruitment to the post of junior clerk in the police department is to be undertaken under Rule 68 of the Gujarat Police Manual. It is submitted that the said Rule prescribes the method and manner of appointment to the post of junior clerk. It is submitted that Rule 68(8) prescribes that any person, who is appointed by way of direct selection to the post of junior clerk, has to pass the post training examination before being confirmed to the post. It is submitted that the said Rule prescribes the method and manner of appointment to the post of junior clerk. It is submitted that Rule 68(8) prescribes that any person, who is appointed by way of direct selection to the post of junior clerk, has to pass the post training examination before being confirmed to the post. It is submitted that as the promotional post from junior clerk is senior clerk, there are separate examination rules framed by the State in the form of Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk Examination rules – 1972. Reliance is placed on rule 3(1) and 5 of the said Rules. It is submitted that rule 4 prescribes that for being eligible to the post of senior clerk, junior clerk, who is recruited prior to 1972, has to pass senior clerk examination within 6 years from the date of his appointment as junior clerk. It provides that the junior clerk, who is recruited prior to 05.10.1972, shall be entitled to appear in senior clerk examination after completion of 3 years of service as junior clerk. It is submitted that the petitioner herein was appointed as junior clerk. The petitioner has to undergo the post training examination as stipulated in Rule 68 of the Gujarat Police Manual and are required to clear the said examination as contemplated under the Recruitment Rules, 1972. It is submitted that the petitioner had passed the pre-service training examination at the relevant point of time. For the said departmental examination for junior clerk, senior clerk was prescribed in two stages i.e. lower level examination and higher level examination. The petitioner gave the lower level examination, which was made for the junior clerk eligible to get primary increments and yearly increments. It is submitted that till 2015, there was no condition of clearing any departmental examination for further promotion for the post of junior clerk to senior clerk or senior clerk to head clerk or head clerk to office superintendent. It is submitted that any junior clerk, who has cleared senior clerk departmental examination, was considered to be eligible for promotion to the post of head clerk after completing requisite years of service. 7.1. It is submitted that any junior clerk, who has cleared senior clerk departmental examination, was considered to be eligible for promotion to the post of head clerk after completing requisite years of service. 7.1. It is submitted that the State Government has farmed the Gujarat Civil Services (Conditions of Service relating to Departmental Examination) Rules, 2015 wherein, to be eligible to be considered for promotion to the post as prescribed in part 1 and 2 of the appendix-A, a person has to pass lower level departmental examination or higher level departmental examination as per the post on which he is working. It is submitted that there were no provisions under the earlier rules prior to 2015, which would have exempted the petitioner from appearing in the examination because, there were no specific rules for the promotions or passing the examination and, therefore, such exemptions which the petitioner has claimed would automatically not be applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that Rule 3(3) of the GAD government resolution dated 31.03.2015 specifically contemplates and intends that only those employees, who have been granted exemptions under the earlier rule, shall be eligible and entitled to claim exemption. It is submitted that the nomenclature for examination have changed in Rules of 2015 and hence, the higher level examination for promotion under the old Rules is renamed as lower level examination under new rules. Under old rules, there was no examination prescribed for head clerk but, under new rules, the same is prescribed under nomenclature of ‘higher level examination’. It is submitted that Rule 3(3) provides for exemption wherein, candidate who has already availed exemption under the old rules, will not be required to pass the said papers. As per Rule 6, the syllabus for lower level examination consists of 5 papers. It is submitted that by way of resolution dated 30.07.2016, it was resolved that paper V (Police Manual) of higher level and lower level as well as paper II (Accounts Matters) of old rules, is exempted. Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 2015 provides that the paper V can be exempted if the candidate has availed 60 marks. 7.2. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that such contentions are contrary to each other. Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 2015 provides that the paper V can be exempted if the candidate has availed 60 marks. 7.2. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that such contentions are contrary to each other. It is submitted that the petitioner became eligible for promotion in the year 2013 when they appeared in the said examination however, failed and, therefore, no promotion was granted. Upon subsequent change in the Rules, when the petitioner was again required to fulfill the criteria of promotion by giving examination under the new Rules, they cannot seek exemption merely on the ground that they were eligible for promotion earlier. It is submitted that from time to time, the examinations are held, the petitioner has appeared and failed and in view thereof, the prayers, as prayed for, are such that they are dehors the Rules. It is submitted that the petitioner placed reliance on the communication dated 08.02.2019, stating that as per the RTI, paper – II under old Rules and paper – V under the new Rules are police manual however, the said letter itself is erroneous as the appendix in the Rules itself is clear that the paper – II under the old Rules is the accounts paper and paper – V under the new Rules is the police manual. Reliance is placed on the chart, which is placed on record at page 155, giving a comparative chart of the subjects under the old Rules i.e. the Rules of 2010 and new Rules i.e. the Rules of 2015. It is submitted that the said communication, in view thereof, cannot be relied upon. It is submitted that even considering that the petitioner is required to be exempted in papers - I and II under the old Rules and paper – V under the new Rules then also, they are required to give the remaining papers i.e. paper – III and IV of the new Rules, unless they obtain 60 marks. Moreover, the petitioner ought to have availed 60 marks and more in papers – I, II and V. The result-sheet reflects that the petitioner has not secured requisite marks and cannot seek exemption. It is submitted that there is no retrospective application of the Rules of 2015. It is submitted that the petitioner has applied under the Rules prevailing during their grant of promotion. It is submitted that there is no retrospective application of the Rules of 2015. It is submitted that the petitioner has applied under the Rules prevailing during their grant of promotion. If the petitioner’s contention is accepted that the Rules of 2015 cannot be applied, then they cannot avail the exemption in the remaining papers – III and IV, which is clearly not exempted under the old Rules. Therefore, the entire foundation of the submissions of the petitioner is such that the same may not be accepted. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot seek selected applicability of the Rules to suit their convenience. As per the prevailing Rules, the petitioner is required to comply with the same and having not been able to comply and pass the competitive examinations, the present petition is required to be dismissed. It is submitted that while granting the promotion, the Rules in force are required to be seen and the petitioner has appeared in the examination in the years 2013, 2018 and 2021 wherein, the Rules prevailing at the relevant point of time were applied. Merely because the petitioner is required to pass the examination, the petitioner is seeking exemption and the same may not be considered. 7.3. It is submitted that the respondent – State has framed the Rules by exercising the powers under Article 309 after considering the overall aspects, which are made applicable, not just to the petitioner but, the departments of the entire State and hence, they are valid in the eye of law, having been applied uniformly. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot seek deemed date promotion and higher scale together. The higher scale is only granted when there is no promotional avenues and in view thereof also, the prayers seeking promotion and higher scale both together are such that the same cannot be granted. It is submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner is that the juniors to the petitioner is promoted, which affects their rights. It is submitted that Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 and Rule 5(a) of the Rules of 2015 stipulate that no seniority can be claimed by the candidates, who have passed earlier then him. Hence, the petitioner cannot avail their rights against the juniors, who have passed the examination. It is submitted that Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010 and Rule 5(a) of the Rules of 2015 stipulate that no seniority can be claimed by the candidates, who have passed earlier then him. Hence, the petitioner cannot avail their rights against the juniors, who have passed the examination. It is submitted that the petitioner is appointed on different dates from 1987 to 2005 and, therefore, their eligibility either for higher pay scale or promotion would valid and there cannot be any specific/blanket relief granted to the petitioner. It is submitted that it is incumbent for the petitioner to pass the lower level examination under the Rules of 2015 to seek promotion and only then, they can avail exemption, if they fulfill the requisite criteria. 7.4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the present petition be dismissed, the petitioner having not passed the requisite examination. 8. It is lastly submitted that the issue raised in the present petition is identical to that of Special Civil Application No.21624 of 2016, which is dismissed by this Court by order dated 04.10.2024 and in view thereof, the present petition would also deserve to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the following emerge. 10. The petitioner herein came to be appointed on 07.12.2004 as junior clerk – Class – III in Gujarat Police Department. The petitioner appeared in the departmental examination conducted in the year 2012 and cleared lower level examination as per the Gujarat Police Department Junior Clerk, Class-III (Departmental Rules), 2010. The appointment letter of the petitioner is duly produced at page 13 at Annexure-A. As per condition no.7 of the appointment letter of the petitioner, which is duly produced at Annexure-A, the candidate shall have to clear the junior/senior departmental examination within the stipulated time. 11. The petitioner has passed the lower level examination under the Rules of 2010 however, the petitioner could not pass the higher level examination under the said Rules. The respondent – State came up with an amendment by notification dated 30.04.2011, which provided for exemption in papers - I and II of the higher level examination. It is not in dispute that even if the petitioner was granted exemption in papers - I and II, the petitioner was required to pass the papers – III and IV of the higher level examination. It is not in dispute that even if the petitioner was granted exemption in papers - I and II, the petitioner was required to pass the papers – III and IV of the higher level examination. Thereafter, the respondent – State came up with the new Rules dated 31.03.2015 wherein, the new syllabus came into force. In the said syllabus also, it contains papers - I to V for both, lower level and higher level departmental examinations. Thereafter, the respondent – State issued a notification providing that those, who claimed exemption as per the old Rules, shall be exempted from paper – V of the both lower level and higher level examinations and paper – II of the lower level examination so, even after the exemption, the petitioner was required to pass papers I, III and IV of the lower level examinations and paper I to IV of the higher level examination as per the Rules of 2015. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein could never pass the higher level examination under the old Rules. The aforesaid is made clear from the perusal of the result, which is duly produced collectively at page – 55. 13. This Court deems it fit to refer to the position of law as under:- (i) State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Raj Kumar and others reported in (2023) 3 SCC 773 . Paragraphs 2, 82.2, 82.3, 82.4 and 87 read thus:- 2. The question is whether appointments to the public posts that fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules or the new Rules. 82.2.It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing 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. 82.3.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. 82.3.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 must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14. 82.4.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. 87. We have already held that there is no right for an employee outside the rules governing the services. We have also followed and applied the Constitution Bench decisions in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel and more particularly the decision in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India that the services under the State are in the nature of a status, a hallmark of which is the need of the State to unilaterally alter the rules to subserve the public interest. The 2006 Rules, governing the services of the respondents came into force immediately after they were notified. There is no provision in the said rules to enable the respondents to be considered as per the 1966 Rules. The matter must end here. There is no other right that Respondents 1 to 3 can claim for such consideration.” 14. In the opinion of this Court, unless and until the requisite departmental examinations are cleared by the petitioner herein, no exemption, as prayed for, can be granted. The appointment order of the petitioner itself provides for passing of the departmental examination and in view thereof, unless the petitioner passes the examination, no reliefs, as prayed for, can be granted. Considering the documents on record, it emerges that though the petitioner appeared in the examination in the year 2013 held under the old Rules, they could not pass the said examination hence, no promotion was granted. 15. Considering the documents on record, it emerges that though the petitioner appeared in the examination in the year 2013 held under the old Rules, they could not pass the said examination hence, no promotion was granted. 15. In light of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has not passed the higher level examination under the old Rules and in view thereof, the petitioner would be governed by the Rules of 2015 and is required to pass the examination under the Rules of 2015 for promotion. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.