Order : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in the present batch of three Writ Petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common Order. 2. All the Petitioners in the three Writ Petitions were promoted on the post of Head of Department (‘HOD’ for short) with effect from 14.6.2007. During their promotion on the post of HOD, Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Gazetted) Service (Teaching Cadre- Polytechnic) Recruitment Rules , 2005 were applicable (‘Rules of 2005’ for short). The said Rules of 2005 were later on repealed and new rules namely – Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre-Polytechnic) (Gazetted) Service Rules, 2014 (‘Rules of 2014’ for short) came into force with effect from 12.5.2014. In Schedule- IV framed under Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2014, qualification and experience for promotion from the post of HOD to the post of Principal have been prescribed, by which the candidate must have three years minimum period of experience as HOD (Engineering/Technical) for eligibility of promotion and she/he also must have prescribed qualification of Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree of appropriate Branch in Engineering/Technology from a recognized University/Institute with First Class or equivalent at either Bachelor’s or Master’s level etc.,. For ready reference, relevant part of Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2014 is being reproduced herein-under:- Serial No. Name of Service/Post from which promotion will be made Minimum period of experience for eligibility of promotion Name of post to which promotion will be made Prescribed Educational qualification and experience Name of members of the Departmental Promotion Committee (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1. Head of Department (Engineering/ Technical) 3 years Principal (1) Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree of appropriate branch in Engineering/ Technology from a recognized University/ Institute with First Class or equivalent at either Bachelor’s or Master’s level. (2) Minimum of 15 years relevant experience in teaching/research/ industry out of which at least 03 years shall be at the level of head of department or equivalent. In case of Architecture professional practice of 15 years as certified by the Council of Architecture shall also be considered valid. (2) Minimum of 15 years relevant experience in teaching/research/ industry out of which at least 03 years shall be at the level of head of department or equivalent. In case of Architecture professional practice of 15 years as certified by the Council of Architecture shall also be considered valid. OR (1) Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree of appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology from a recognized University/ Institute with First Class or equivalent at either Bachelor’s or Master’s level and Ph.D. or equivalent, in appropriate discipline in Engineering/ Technology from a recognized University/ Institute. (2) Minimum of 10 years relevant experience in teaching/research/ industry out of which at least 03 years shall be at the level of head of department or equivalent. In case of promotion from the post of HOD Architecture, professional practice of 10 years as certified by the Council of Architecture shall also be considered valid. 1. Chairman of Public Service Commission or Member nominated by the Chairman- Chairman 2. Secretary In-charge Technical Education, Public Employment and Science and Technology- Member 3. Director of Technical Education- Member 3. A meeting of the Departmental Promotional Committee (‘DPC’ for short) was convened on 27.5.2014 in which all the candidates were considered and the private Respondents herein were promoted on the post of Principal by Order dated 25.6.2014. However, the Petitioners herein were not promoted on the said post of Principal, holding that they did not have the prescribed educational qualifications as per Rules of 2014. 4. Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of their non-promotion on the post of Principal and the promotion of the private Respondents on the said post, the present Writ Petitions have been preferred separately by the Petitioners herein. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that in all the cases vacancies arose from the year 2005 to 2013 and therefore their case for promotion ought to have been considered in accordance with the Rules of 2005 (which has been repealed by the Rules of 2014). However, the State has filed its reply stating that only the rules which are applicable on the date of consideration would be applicable and not the rules which have been repealed. 6. Mr. B.P. Singh and Mr. However, the State has filed its reply stating that only the rules which are applicable on the date of consideration would be applicable and not the rules which have been repealed. 6. Mr. B.P. Singh and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Counsels appearing for the respective Petitioners, submit that the case of the Petitioners ought to have been considered in accordance with law as they became eligible for promotion on 13.6.2010 and were having requisite qualification for being promoted to the post of Principal as per Rules of 2005 and therefore they are entitled for promotion to the post of Principal. 7. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State in all the three Writ Petitions, submits that the law in this regard is well-settled by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v . Raj Kumar and Others , [(2003) 3 SCC 773] in which it has clearly been held that right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of eligible candidates and applicable rules would be the rules existing i.e. rule in force. Therefore, despite having vacancies, if any, arose from 2005 to 2013 that would not be relevant and the applicable rules would be the Rules of 2014 which have came into force with effect from 12.5.2014 and as per the Rules of 2014, the Petitioners did not have the prescribed qualifications on the date when their cases were considered for promotion to the post of Principal and as such they have rightly not been promoted. 8. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission as well as Mr. Tanmay Thomas and Ms. Natasha Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the respective private Respondents, adopt the submissions made by learned State Counsel and support the stand taken by the State. 9. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 10. Tanmay Thomas and Ms. Natasha Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the respective private Respondents, adopt the submissions made by learned State Counsel and support the stand taken by the State. 9. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 10. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners were having qualifications for promotion on the post of Principal as per Rules of 2005 and on the date of consideration i.e. on 27.5.2014 when the cases of promotion on the post of Principal were considered, the DPC did not found the Petitioners having the prescribed qualifications in terms of educational qualifications for the post of Principal, as per Rules of 2014. 11. Now, the core question for consideration would be: “When the vacancies have arisen prior to the coming into force of the Rules of 2014 with effect from 12.5.2014, whether the Petitioners would be governed by the old Rules of 2005 or the news Rules of 2014?” 12. The said issue is no longer res integra and stands finally and conclusively decided by the Supreme Court resolving the issue in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v . Raj Kumar and Others , and it has clearly been held that the rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services and also held that the observations in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284 , that posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and not by new Rules do not reflect the correct position of law. In this regard, the relevant paragraphs 85.1, 85.2 & 87 are being reproduced herein under:- “85.1. The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao [ Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 382] that, “the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules”, does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under Part XIV of the Constitution. It is hereby overruled. 85.2. It is hereby overruled. 85.2. The rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services. 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 [Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672] and more particularly the decision in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India [Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 185 : AIR 1967 SC 1889 ] 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.” 13. In light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to herein-above, the only right for the Petitioners to be considered for promotion would be in accordance with rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place. In the instant case, on 27.5.2014 when the cases of promotion on the post of Principal were considered by the DPC, admittedly the Petitioners did not have the prescribed qualifications for promotion on the post of Principal, as per Rules of 2014. 14. Accordingly and in view of above, I do not find any merit in the present Writ Petitions which deserve to be and are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.