ORDER : S.G. PANDIT, J. In the above batch of Writ Petitions, the grievance of the parties is common and it is the dispute between the Absorbed Assistant Engineers , Hereinafter referred to as ‘Absorbed AEs’ and Direct Recruit Assistant Engineers , Hereinafter referred to as ‘DR-AEs’ in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj , Hereinafter referred to as ‘RDPR Department’ . Hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the above Writ Petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. In Writ Petition No.26182/2023, Absorbed AEs are before this court questioning the order dated 08.08.2023 in Application Nos. 3505-3509 of 2022 C/w Application Nos. 2426-2430 of 2022, wherein, their prayer to quash the rankings assigned to private respondents(DR-AEs) in the impugned seniority list dated 02.07.2022(Annexure-A4) of the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers , Hereinafter referred to as ‘AEEs’ and in the seniority list dated 20.09.2021(Annexure-A10) of the cadre of Assistant Engineer , Hereinafter referred to as ‘AEs’ and to include their name over and above the private respondents with all consequential benefits was refused by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal , For short ‘Tribunal’ 3. In Writ Petition No.12507/2024, the Absorbed AEs are before this court aggrieved by the Order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Tribunal in Application Nos. 4568- 4582/2023 rejecting their prayer to set aside the notification dated 20.09.2021(Annexure A23), i.e. seniority list in the cadre of AEs and also to set aside notification dated 02.07.2022 (Annexure-A28), i.e. seniority list in the cadre of AEEs with a direction to publish the revised seniority list and to assign appropriate rankings with all consequential benefits. 4. In Writ Petition No.19017/2024, the Absorbed AEs are before this Court aggrieved by order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Tribunal in Application Nos. 2089 to 2094/2024 rejecting their prayer to set aside the notification dated 20.9.2021(Annexure A15), i.e. seniority list in the cadre of AEs and also to set aside notification dated 02.07.2022,i.e. seniority list in the cadre of AEEs with a direction to publish the revised seniority list and to assign appropriate rankings with all consequential benefits. 5. In Writ Petition No. 17562/2025, the DR-AEs are before this Court aggrieved by an Interim Order dated 09.06.2025 in Application Nos. 5. In Writ Petition No. 17562/2025, the DR-AEs are before this Court aggrieved by an Interim Order dated 09.06.2025 in Application Nos. 2459 to 2465/ 2025 wherein their prayer to stay impugned communication dated 03.06.2025(Annexure A13) directing to treat Absorbed AEs as absorption in public interest and to treat the 2016 DR-AEs as juniors under notification dated 03.06.2025 and consequently, cancelling the seniority list of AEs and AEEs published on 20.09.2021 and 02.07.2022, respectively, is refused. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the Absorbed AEs were initially appointed as AEs in the year 2004 to the combined department of Public Works, Irrigation and Rural Development. Whereas, the DR-AEs were directly recruited and appointed as AEs in RDPR Department under Karnataka Panchayath Raj Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2008 (For Short ‘2008 Rules’) on 08.01.2016. 7. On 20.9.2019, the DR-AEs were placed in independent charge under Rule 32 of KCSRs as AEEs in the RDPR Department. The absorbed AEs challenged the said order dated 20.09.2019 placing DR-AEs in independent charge as AEEs in the RDPR Department before the Tribunal in Application Nos. 7493-7502 of 2019. The Tribunal by order dated 04.09.2020 dismissed the said application observing that, placing on a higher post under Rule 32 of KCSRs is not a promotion. Subsequently, by notification dated 01.07.2020, the DR-AEs were regularly/substantively promoted to the cadre of AEE in the RDPR Department. In the meanwhile, on 16.05.2020, options were called from the AEs working in the Dept. of Public Works , For short ‘PWD’ for absorption into the bifurcated department of RDPR. In pursuance to said option opted by the absorbed AEs, they were permanently absorbed as AEs in public interest under notification dated 08.12.2020. 8. By Notification dated 23.06.2021, the 2008 Rules were amended by publishing the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Engineering Rules (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2021 , For short ‘2021 Rules’ Rule 2 of the 2021 Rules provided that the seniority of the persons who have expressed their willingness for absorption into RDPR Department shall be determined with reference to their inter-se seniority in the parent department in accordance with the Karnataka Government Servants’ (Seniority) Rules,1957 , Hereinafter referred to as ‘1957 Rules’ after absorption into RDPR Department. Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules repealed the 2008 Rules. Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules repealed the 2008 Rules. However, the proviso to Rule 3 made it clear that repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the 2008 Rules. 9. On 23.08.2021, a provisional seniority list of the cadre of AE in the RDPR Department was published, wherein, the names of the Absorbed AEs and the DR-AEs who were promoted subsequently as AEEs were not shown. The Absorbed AEs filed their objection to seniority list of AEs stating that their names be shown in the seniority list of AEs and they had also requested to show the names of DR-AEs below them. Without taking into consideration the objection to the provisional seniority list, the final seniority list of the cadre of AEs was published on 20.09.2021. In the said final seniority list, the DR-AEs of 2016 were shown below the Absorbed AEs except those DR-AEs who are already promoted to the cadre of AEEs on 01.07.2020. 10. Based on the final seniority list dated 20.09.2021, the Aborbed AEs were promoted as AEEs on 01.12.2021. Thereafter, on 02.07.2022, RDPR Department published seniority list of cadre of AEEs wherein the date of eligibility of DR-AEs was shown as 01.07.2020. The absorbed AEs questioning the seniority list of the cadre of AEs published vide notification dated 20.09.2021, seniority list of the cadre of AEEs published vide notification dated 02.07.2022 and also questioning promotion of the DR-AEs as AEEs, were before the Tribunal in several applications stated above. The Tribunal under impugned orders dismissed the Absorbed AEs’ challenge to the seniority list, ranking assigned to the DR- AEs and their promotion. The Tribunal in its order dated 08.08.2023 in Application Nos. 3505-3509/2022 and Application Nos. 2426-2430/2022 (subject matter of Writ Petition No.26182/2023) while rejecting the prayer of the Absorbed AEs observed that the absorbed AEs would be entitled to seniority in the cadre of AEs in the bifurcated RDPR Department only from their date of absorption and they would be junior to the DR-AEs appointed prior to the absorption of absorbed AEs. In its Order dated 18.04.2024 in Application Nos. In its Order dated 18.04.2024 in Application Nos. 4568-4582/2022 (Subject Matter of Writ Petition No.12507/2024) the Tribunal while rejecting the prayer of the Absorbed AEs observed that mere challenge to the impugned seniority list dated 02.07.2022 of AEEs in RDPR Department in the absence of challenge to the promotion order of the DR-AEs to the cadre of AEEs is untenable. 11. In its Order dated 04.07.2024 in Application Nos. 2089 to 2094/2024(Subject Matter of Writ Petition No.19017/2024) while rejecting the absorbed AEs challenge to the seniority list dated 20.01.2021 and seniority list of AEEs dated 02.07.2022, the Tribunal observed that the promotion accorded to the DR-AEs in accordance with 2008 Rules is a valid promotion and is saved by the 2021 Rules. Aggrieved by the aforementioned 3 orders passed by the Tribunal, the Absorbed AEs filed Writ Petition Nos. 26182/2023, 12507/2024 and 19017/2024. 12. In the meanwhile, vide Notification dated 03.06.2025, final seniority list dated 20.09.2021 was cancelled by the Respondent State and it was held that Absorbed AEs shall be considered as absorbed in public interest and the DR-AEs of the year 2016 shall be considered as junior to the Absorbed AEs. Challenging the said notification, the DR-AEs of 2016 subsequently promoted as AEEs filed Application Nos. 2459-2465/2025 before the Tribunal. On 05.06.2025, the State published the provisional seniority list of AEs, wherein DR-AEs of 2016 who were subsequently promoted as AEEs were placed below the Absorbed AEs of 2020. The Tribunal vide Interim Order dated 09.06.2025, refused to grant interim prayer as prayed for by the DR-AEs. Aggrieved by the same, the DR-AEs filed Writ Petition No. 17562/2025. 13. Heard Learned Counsel Sri. Vijaykumar Bajenthri for Absorbed AEs, Learned Senior Counsel Sri. PS Rajagopal and Sri. Raghavendra Gayathri for DR-AEs, and Learned Additional Advocate General Sri. Reuben Jacob for Official Respondents. 14. Learned Counsel for the Absorbed AEs Sri. Vijaykumar Bajenthri would submit that the absorbed AEs joined service as AEs in the combined Public Works, Irrigation and RDPR much prior to the direct recruitment of DR-AEs in the department of RDPR. PS Rajagopal and Sri. Raghavendra Gayathri for DR-AEs, and Learned Additional Advocate General Sri. Reuben Jacob for Official Respondents. 14. Learned Counsel for the Absorbed AEs Sri. Vijaykumar Bajenthri would submit that the absorbed AEs joined service as AEs in the combined Public Works, Irrigation and RDPR much prior to the direct recruitment of DR-AEs in the department of RDPR. It is submitted that, as the absorption of the Absorbed AEs into RDPR Department, subsequent to its bifurcation, is in public interest under Rule 16(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1979, they are entitled for seniority in the cadre of AEs from the date of their initial appointment in the combined department of PWD, Irrigation and RDPR. Learned Counsel would further submit that the absorption of employees from PWD to RDPR had taken place in a phased manner. The Absorbed AEs submitted their consent for their absorption to RDPR in pursuance to options invited dated 16.05.2020. Further, he contends that when the expert committee on 31.10.2019 took a decision not to effect promotion to the cadre of AEEs in RDPR Department, contrary to the said decision, after inviting options from the absorbed AEs, DR-AEs were placed in independent charge under Rule 32 as AEEs in the RDPR Department on 20.09.2019 and were regularly promoted as AEEs on 01.07.2020. Learned Counsel Sri. Vijaykumar Bajenthri placing reliance on Rule 2 of the 2021 Rules would submit that the Absorbed AEs are entitled for seniority taking into consideration their initial appointment in the cadre of AE in the combined department. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the Writ Petitions of the Absorbed AEs and to grant them seniority over and above DR-AEs who are appointed to the cadre of AEs in the year 2016. 15. On the contrary, learned senior counsel Sr. PS Rajagopal as well as learned counsel Sri. Raghavendra Gayathri would contend that the Absorbed AEs could claim seniority by taking into account their date of initial appointment in the cadre of AEs in the bifurcated RDPR Department over the AEs who are there in the cadre of AE as on the date of their absorption, i.e. as on 08.12.2020. It is their specific contention that DR-AEs were substantively promoted as AEEs on 01.07.2020 and they were no longer in the cadre of AE as on the date of absorption of the Absorbed AEs. It is their specific contention that DR-AEs were substantively promoted as AEEs on 01.07.2020 and they were no longer in the cadre of AE as on the date of absorption of the Absorbed AEs. Therefore, they submit that that absorbed AEs as on 08.12.2020, cannot claim seniority over and above the DR- AEs who are before this Court. They would also place reliance on amended Rule 3 of 2021 Rules and contend that their promotion is saved while repealing the 2008 Rules. It is their specific contention that an accrued right cannot be taken away by a subsequent action of the State so as to prejudice the accrued or acquired right. 16. Learned AAG Sri. Reuben Jacob for Respondent State would submit that the State in obedience of the Order of the Tribunal Dated 08.08.2023 in Application Nos. 3505- 3509/2022 and Application Nos. 2426-2430/2022(Subject Matter of Writ Petition No. 26182/2023) published the Reviewed Seniority List dated 05.06.2025 which is the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 17562/2025 filed by DR- AEs. Learned AAG would specifically submit that the absorption of absorbed AEs was in public interest and as such they would be entitled for counting their past service rendered in the PWD for the purpose of seniority in the bifurcated RDPR Dept. Learned AAG would refer to Rule 2 of 2021 rules to contend that the seniority of Absorbed AEs shall be determined with reference to their inter-se seniority in the parent department in accordance with the 1957 Rules. Therefore, he submits that the State rightly placed the Absorbed AEs over and above the DR-AEs in the provisional seniority list published on 05.06.2025. Thus, he would pray for appropriate orders in the above Writ Petitions. 17. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for consideration: a) Whether the absorbed AEs could claim seniority over the private respondents-DR AEs? b) Whether the DR-AEs acquired vested right in the promoted post of AEE, before absorption of absorbed AEs? 18. The absorbed AEs were initially appointed as AEs to the combined Department of Public Works, Irrigation and RDPR in the year 2004, whereas DR-AEs were directly recruited as AEs in RDPR under 2008 Rules. b) Whether the DR-AEs acquired vested right in the promoted post of AEE, before absorption of absorbed AEs? 18. The absorbed AEs were initially appointed as AEs to the combined Department of Public Works, Irrigation and RDPR in the year 2004, whereas DR-AEs were directly recruited as AEs in RDPR under 2008 Rules. From the very proceeding of the officers under the Chairmanship of Deputy Chief Minister, Public Works and Social Welfare Department held on 19.09.2019 (Annexure-A4), it is seen that the Department of Public Works, Irrigation and RDPR was bifurcated initially in the year 1989 and separate C & R Rules were prescribed for the department of Public Works and Irrigation respectively. It is also seen that C & R Rules were prescribed for the RDPR in the year 2002. It is also seen from the said proceedings that the options of the Engineers working in several cadres of PWD were called for absorption of their services either in Irrigation or Rural Development Department. 19. The said process of absorption is carried out in a phased manner. Though the absorbed AEs were initially appointed as AEs in the year 2004, they submitted their option for absorption into Rural Development Department in pursuance to Circular dated 16.5.2020 and they were absorbed into RDPR Department under Notification dated 8.12.2020 (Annexure-A12). Though DR-AEs were directly recruited and appointed as AE in RDPR under 2008 Rules on 08.01.2016, they were placed in independent charge of the post of AEE under Rule 32 of KCSR on 20.09.2019 and they were further substantively promoted as AEEs on 1.7.2020. It is very relevant to note here that the absorbed AEs were absorbed into RDPR on 8.12.2020. DR-AEs, who were directly recruited as AEs in RDPR were no longer in the cadre of AEs and they were substantively promoted to the cadre of AEEs on 1.7.2020 itself. The absorbed AEs though they were absorbed into RDPR in public interest, they could claim seniority over the Engineers, who were in the said cadre of AE as on the date of absorption i.e. 8.12.2020. 20. Learned Additional Advocate General, Sri. Reuben Jacob placing reliance on Rule 2 of 2021 Rules submitted that the seniority of the persons, who have expressed their willingness for absorption, shall be determined with reference to the inter se seniority in the Department in accordance with 1957 Rules for absorption in Panchayat Raj Department. 20. Learned Additional Advocate General, Sri. Reuben Jacob placing reliance on Rule 2 of 2021 Rules submitted that the seniority of the persons, who have expressed their willingness for absorption, shall be determined with reference to the inter se seniority in the Department in accordance with 1957 Rules for absorption in Panchayat Raj Department. Further, it is contended that the absorbed AEs are absorbed in public interest. Therefore, in terms of Rule 6 of 1957 Rules, they would be entitled to count their past service in parent PWD for the purpose of determination of their seniority in the absorbed RDPR. It is true that the absorbed AEs would be entitled to count their past service rendered by them in the parent PWD for the purpose of determination of their seniority in the absorbed RDPR. However, they could claim counting of their past seniority in the cadre of AEs or service in the parent PWD, over the AEs who are working in the RDPR Department as on the date of their absorption into the RDPR Department as AEs i.e., on 08.12.2020. They cannot claim seniority over the AEs, who are already promoted to the next higher cadre of AEEs as on the date of their absorption. Rule 2 of 2021 Rules would permit determination of seniority of the absorbed engineers inter se when they are absorbed in the RDPR. 21. The DR-AEs were promoted as AEEs on 01.07.2020, whereas absorbed AEs were absorbed into RDPR subsequently on 08.12.2020. As on the date of absorption of absorbed AEs in the RDPR, admittedly, DR-AEs were not in the cadre of AEs and they were substantively promoted to the cadre of AEEs. They had acquired certain rights by virtue of substantive promotion in the cadre of AEEs. This vested right or acquired right cannot be taken away or withdrawn subsequently. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in T.R.Kapur v. State of Haryana , 1986 Supp SCC 584 , while considering the question as to whether the already promoted persons’ vested rights can be taken away by means of an amendment to the Rules, has held as follows: “16. This vested right or acquired right cannot be taken away or withdrawn subsequently. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in T.R.Kapur v. State of Haryana , 1986 Supp SCC 584 , while considering the question as to whether the already promoted persons’ vested rights can be taken away by means of an amendment to the Rules, has held as follows: “16. It is well settled that the power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with a retrospective effect: B.S. Vadhera v. Union of India [ AIR 1969 SC 118 : (1968) 3 SCR 575 : (1970) 1 Lab LJ 499] , Raj Kumar v. Union of India [ (1975) 4 SCC 13 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 198: (1975) 3 SCR 963 ] , K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P. [ (1985) 1 SCC 523 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 280] and State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa [ (1974) 1 SCC 19 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 49 : (1974) 1 SCR 771 ] . It is equally well settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules, cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules, cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words, such rules laying down qualifications for promotion made with retrospective effect must necessarily satisfy the tests of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution: State of Mysore v. M.N. Krishna Murty [ (1973) 3 SCC 559 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 190 : AIR 1973 SC 1146 : (1973) 2 SCR 575 ] , B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana [ 1980 Supp SCC 524 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 343 : (1981) 1 SCR 1024 ] , State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni [ (1983) 2 SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 231 : (1983) 2 SCR 287 ] and Ex-Captain K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana [ (1984) 3 SCC 281 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1984) 3 SCR 623 ]”. (emphasis supplied) 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court yet again in K.Narayanan v. State of Karnataka , 1994 Supp(1) SCC 44 , while considering the Rule which provided for transfer of a Junior Engineer as Assistant Engineer, observed as follows: “7. Rules operate prospectively. Retrospectivity is an exception. Even where the statute permits framing of rule with retrospective effect the exercise of power must not operate discriminately or in violation of any constitutional right so as to affect vested right. The rule-making authority should not be permitted normally to act in the past. The impugned rule made in 1985 permitting appointment by transfer and making it operative from 1976 subject to availability of vacancy in effect results in appointing a Junior Engineer in 1986 with effect from 1976. Retrospectivity of the rules is a camouflage for appointment of Junior Engineers from a back date. In our opinion the rule operates viciously against all those Assistant Engineers who were appointed between 1976 to 1985. In Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana [ (1984) 3 SCC 281 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 520] and P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. [ (1987) 3 SCC 622 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 310 : (1987) 4 ATC 272] it was held by this Court that the President or Governor cannot make such retrospective rules under Article 309 of the Constitution as contravene Articles 14, 16 or 311 and affect vested right of an employee. Even in B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana [ 1980 Supp SCC 524 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 343 : (1981) 1 SCR 1024 ] where the power to frame rules retrospectively was upheld it was observed: (SCC p. 557, para 76) “Since the Governor exercises a legislative power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, it is open to him to give retrospective operation to the rules made under that provision. But the date from which the rules are made to operate must be shown to bear, either from the face of the rules or by extrinsic evidence, reasonable nexus with the provisions contained in the rules, especially when the retrospective effect extends over a long period as in this case.” As seen earlier there is no nexus between framing a rule permitting appointment by transfer and making it retrospective with effect from 1976. Appointing a person to a higher post in a different cadre in which he has never worked is violative of constitutional guarantee of those who are working in the cadre. It is against basic principle of recruitment to any service. Even in Mohammad Shujat Ali [ (1975) 3 SCC 76 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 454] where the Constitution Bench while reiterating that distinction in qualification was valid criterion for determining eligibility for promotion except where both held the same post and perform same duty did not strike down the rules as the differentiation in same class of persons was not brought about for the first time but existed from before and the two were treated as distinct and separate class. The retrospective operation of the impugned rule attempts to disturb a system which has been existing for more than twenty years. And that too without any rationale. Absence of nexus apart no rule can be made retrospectively to operate unjustly and unfairly against other (sic). In our opinion the retrospective operation of the rule with effect from January 1, 1976 is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16.” 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Railway Board v. C.R.Rangadhamaiah , (1997) 6 SCC 623 , while considering the Rule which affected the vested rights, has held as follows: “20. In our opinion the retrospective operation of the rule with effect from January 1, 1976 is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16.” 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Railway Board v. C.R.Rangadhamaiah , (1997) 6 SCC 623 , while considering the Rule which affected the vested rights, has held as follows: “20. It can, therefore, be said that a rule which operates in futuro so as to govern future rights of those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retroactivity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule which seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted or availed of, e.g., promotion or pay scale, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. 22. In State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni [ (1983) 2 SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 231 : (1983) 2 SCR 287 ] decided by a Constitution Bench of the Court, the question was whether the status of ex-ministerial employees who had been allocated to the Panchayat service as Secretaries, Officers and Servants of Gram and Nagar Panchayats under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961 as government servants could be extinguished by making retrospective amendment of the said Act in 1978. Striking down the said amendment on the ground that it offended Articles 311 and 14 of the Constitution, this Court said: (SCC p. 62, para 52) “52. … The legislature is undoubtedly competent to legislate with retrospective effect to take away or impair any vested right acquired under existing laws but since the laws are made under a written Constitution, and have to conform to the do's and don'ts of the Constitution, neither prospective nor retrospective laws can be made so as to contravene Fundamental Rights. The law must satisfy the requirements of the Constitution today taking into account the accrued or acquired rights of the parties today. The law cannot say, twenty years ago the parties had no rights, therefore, the requirements of the Constitution will be satisfied if the law is dated back by twenty years. The law must satisfy the requirements of the Constitution today taking into account the accrued or acquired rights of the parties today. The law cannot say, twenty years ago the parties had no rights, therefore, the requirements of the Constitution will be satisfied if the law is dated back by twenty years. We are concerned with today's rights and not yesterday's. A legislature cannot legislate today with reference to a situation that obtained twenty years ago and ignore the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued in the course of the twenty years. That would be most arbitrary, unreasonable and a negation of history.” 23. The said decision in Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni [ (1983) 2 SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 231 : (1983) 2 SCR 287 ] of the Constitution Bench of this Court has been followed by various Division Benches of this Court. (See K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana [ (1984) 3 SCC 281 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1984) 3 SCR 623 ] ; T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana [ 1986 Supp SCC 584 : (1987) 2 ATC 595 : (1987) 1 SCR 584 ] ; P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. [ (1987) 3 SCC 622 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 310 : (1987) 4 ATC 72 : (1987) 3 SCR 427 ] ; K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (1) SCC 44 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 392 : (1994) 26 ATC 724] ; Union of India v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty [ (1994) 5 SCC 450 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1118 : (1994) 27 ATC 892] and K. Ravindranath Pai v. State of Karnataka [1995 Supp (2) SCC 246 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 792 : (1995) 30 ATC 69 ] .) 24. In many of these decisions the expressions “vested rights” or “accrued rights” have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution . We are unable to hold that these decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon [ AIR 1967 SC 1889 : (1968) 1 SCR 185 : (1968) 1 LLJ 576 ] , B.S. Vedera [ AIR 1969 SC 118 : (1968) 3 SCR 575 : (1970) 1 LLJ 499 ] and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni [ (1983) 2 SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 231 : (1983) 2 SCR 287 ] .” (emphasis supplied) 25. Upon a reading of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is crystal clear that vested right or acquired right cannot be divested or impaired or taken away by subsequent action of the State either by amending any Rule or by any other action of the State. 26. Rule 3 of 2021 Rules reads as follows: “ 3) Repeal and Savings . – The Karnataka Panchayat Raj Engineering Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2008 and any other amendment to the said rules, are hereby repealed. Provided that the said repeal shall not affect,– (a) the previous operations of the said rules or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said rules.” 27. The above Rule saves all actions or right, privilege acquired or accrued under 2008 Rules. The DR-AEs were directly recruited under 2008 Rules and they were also further promoted as AEEs in terms of 2008 Rules prior to absorption of absorbed AEs. As rights acquired under 2008 Rules is saved, the absorbed AEs are not entitled to claim seniority over DR-AEs, who are promoted prior to their absorption as AEs in RDPR. 28. The DR-AEs were directly recruited under 2008 Rules and they were also further promoted as AEEs in terms of 2008 Rules prior to absorption of absorbed AEs. As rights acquired under 2008 Rules is saved, the absorbed AEs are not entitled to claim seniority over DR-AEs, who are promoted prior to their absorption as AEs in RDPR. 28. The Tribunal rightly noticing Rule 3 of 2021 Rules held that promotion of DR-AEs is in accordance with law and further rightly held that the question of according seniority to absorbed AEs over the DR-AEs does not arise. 29. In the above background, the State Government without there being any reason, could not have addressed letter dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-A13 to W.P. No.17562/2025) directing the Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Department, to treat the absorbed AEs as seniors to 2016 appointed DR-AEs. We do not find any fault with the direction issued by the State Government to treat the absorption of absorbed AEs in public interest and to determine their seniority under Rule 6 of 1957 Rules. However, in terms of Rule 6, the absorbed AEs would be entitled to claim seniority in public interest over the Assistant Engineers who are in the said cadre as on the date of their absorption. As the 2016 directly recruited AEs were not in the cadre of Assistant Engineers and they were promoted prior to the absorption of absorbed AEs, the State could not have directed to treat the 2016 DR-AEs as juniors to absorbed AEs. The State is also not justified in cancelling the seniority list of Assistant Engineers dated 20.09.2021 and seniority list of AEEs dated 20.07.2022 under Notification dated 03.06.2025. The said notification would not indicate any reason for cancellation of the seniority list. 30. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ramaswamy G T & Others Vs. State of Karnataka , 1986(1) KLJ 1 , while considering Rule 10 of 1957 Rules, at paragraphs 27 and 28 has held as follows: “27. The said notification would not indicate any reason for cancellation of the seniority list. 30. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ramaswamy G T & Others Vs. State of Karnataka , 1986(1) KLJ 1 , while considering Rule 10 of 1957 Rules, at paragraphs 27 and 28 has held as follows: “27. Rule 10 of the Seniority Rules on which strong reliance has been placed by Sri Narasimhamurthy to sustain his wide proposition reads thus: “10(1) There shall be prepared every year for each cadre of service or class of posts a seniority list consisting of the names of all officers borne on the said cadre or class of posts arranged in order of seniority in accordance with the provisions of these rules. (2) The seniority list under sub-rule (1) shall be prepared by:— (a) The Government for Gazetted cadres of service or classes of posts; (b) The Head of the department concerned for non-gazetted cadres of service or classes of posts; “Provided that the Government may also prepare the seniority list for non-Gazetted cadres of any service or class of posts”. 28. This rule directs the preparation of seniority lists in every cadre of every department of Government by the designated authority every year. In case of gazetted cadre/cadres, Government is the authority to prepare seniority lists and in other cadres it is the head of Departments. The object and intendment of this Rule is only to have updated seniority lists in every cadre and nothing more than that. The rule no where authorises and empowers a review of all earlier promotions and re-determination of all earlier rankings made in the earlier seniority lists. In the process of updating seniority lists, it is even inconceivable to hold that earlier seniority lists which have become final should also be reviewed and a fresh determination made. The rule on its terms does not support the very wide construction and proposition suggested on it. We are of the view that the acceptance of any such view would only lead to disastrous results. We find no merit in this contention of Sri Narasimhamurthy and reject the same.” In the above decision, it is made clear that, in the process of updating seniority lists, it is inconceivable to review the earlier seniority lists which have attained finality. We find no merit in this contention of Sri Narasimhamurthy and reject the same.” In the above decision, it is made clear that, in the process of updating seniority lists, it is inconceivable to review the earlier seniority lists which have attained finality. Once final seniority list is published by the competent authority, the same cannot be tinkered with or withdrawn unless it is set aside by a Court or by higher authority finding fault with the same. In the instant case as well, seniority list in the case of AEs and AEEs dated 20.09.2021 and 20.07.2022, respectively had attained finality. The same could not have been unsettled vide communication and notification dated 03.06.2025 31. In W.P. No.17562/2025, the petitioners i.e., DR-AEs are before this Court against the interim order passed by the Tribunal refusing to stay the communication dated 03.06.2025 where under the Government has directed to treat the 2016 DR-AEs as Juniors to absorbed AEs as well as notification dated 03.06.2025 cancelling the seniority list. In view of the reasons recorded above and the finding arrived at by us, both the communication dated 03.06.2025 and the Notification dated 03.06.2025 cancelling the seniority list needs to be stayed. Accordingly, the interim order dated 09.06.2025 passed in Application Nos.2459-2465/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, is quashed. Consequently, the communication bearing No. GraAaPa 53 JiPaAa 2024 dated 03.06.2025 and the Notification bearing No. GraAaPa 53 JiPaAa 2024 dated 03.06.2025 are stayed. The Tribunal shall dispose of the application in the light of the observations made above in the course of the order. 32. For the reasons recorded above, W.P. No.26182/2023, W.P. No.12507/2024 and W.P. No.19017/2024 are dismissed and orders dated 08.08.2023, 18.04.2024 and 04.07.2024 passed in Application Nos. 3505-3509 of 2022 C/w Application Nos. 2426 to 2430 of 2022, Application Nos. 4568 to 4582 of 2022 and Application Nos. 2089 to 2094 of 2024, respectively, are affirmed. Consequently, W.P. No.17562/2025 is allowed in terms of paragraph No.31 above.