JUDGMENT : T.R.RAVI, J. The petitioner joined the service of the 1st respondent in 1994. Ext.P1 is the seniority list of Superintendent/Accounts Officer, published on 19.12.2020 in which the petitioner is shown against Sl.No.2 and Smt. Preetha John is shown against Sl.No.1. The petitioner had been posted as Superintendent, when Smt.Preetha John was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager, as can be seen from Exhibit P2. Smt. Preetha John was later promoted as General Manager on 20.6.2023 and the petitioner was promoted as Deputy General Manager in the resultant vacancy. Smt.Preetha John retired from service on 31.05.2024 and the petitioner was put in additional charge of General Manager. This fact is evidenced by Exhibit P4. The claim of the petitioner is that she is the seniormost qualified and eligible hand in the feeder category and is entitled to be promoted to the post of General Manager with effect from01.06.2024. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation on 14.10.2024 and thereafter filed W.P.(C)No.44797 of 2024 before this Court on 13.12.2024. While so, when steps were taken for making contract appointment to the post of General Manager based on the amendment of Staff Regulation effected on 08.01.2025, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying to quash Exts. P6 and P7, insofar as they relate to filling up of post of General Manager under the 1 st respondent, which arose on 1.6.2024 by promotion, and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post with the effect from 01.06.2024. 2. Exhibit P6 is a press release issued by the 1 st respondent calling for applications for appointment to the post of General Manager and Exhibit P7 is the amendment of the relevant Rule relating to appointment to the post of General Manager. The vacancy in the post of General Manager arose on 1.6.2024. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the Managing Committee of the 1 st respondent by resolution dated 11.03.2024 decided to conduct selection process for the post of General Manager from external sources and to amend the qualifications for the post of General Manager. Ext.R1(a) is the copy of the resolution. On 04.04.2024, a proposal was submitted before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as per Exhibit R1(b). The proposal was approved on 08.01.2025 by the Registrar. Ext.R1(a) is the copy of the resolution. On 04.04.2024, a proposal was submitted before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as per Exhibit R1(b). The proposal was approved on 08.01.2025 by the Registrar. The Registrar approved the amendments proposed by the 1 st respondent in the staff pattern and feeder category of Staff Regulation Rules and it is based on that the 1 st respondent has proceeded to issue notification calling for applications. The proceedings of the Registrar have been produced as Ext.R1(c). It is argued that there is no obligation cast on the 1 st respondent to make appointments to the post of General Manager on the basis of the unamended Rules since the vacancy arose earlier, merely for the reason that Ext.R1(c) was subsequent to the date of arising of vacancy. 4. The issue whether an appointment to the post should be made on the basis of the existing Rules or on the basis of the Rules that existed at the time of arising of the vacancies, is no longer res integra. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar [ (2023) 3 SCC 773 ] , Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue and in paragraph 82 held as follows. “82. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under: 82.1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah’s case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein. 82.2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed 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 Article14. 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. 82.5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases.” 5. A Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mehaboob P.M. v. State of Kerala [ 2022 KHC 557 ] held that the judgment of this Court in Mohanan v. Director of Homeopathy [ 2006 (3) KLT 641 ] , can no longer be treated as good law, in view of the judgment in Raj Kumar (supra) Another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India v. A. Mohandas [2025 KHC Online 265 ] referred elaborately to the judgment in Raj Kumar (supra) and the other cases which have been referred to in the said judgment and held that the judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah v. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. [ (1983) 3 SCC 284 ] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had earlier held that the rule in force on the date of arising of vacancies is to be followed, can no longer be relied upon in view of Raj Kumar (supra) 6. The counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on the decision in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. [ (2025) 2 SCC 1 ] rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to submit that the rule of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has commenced. The counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on the decision in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. [ (2025) 2 SCC 1 ] rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to submit that the rule of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has commenced. It is submitted that the recruitment process in this case should be treated as having commenced when the vacancy arose. The above submission cannot be countenanced. This Court had occasion to consider a similar issue in W.P.(C)No.24588 of 2025. In the said judgment, this Court held that the judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) was one where the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a reference and the reference was answered stating that the recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends up with filling up of vacancies and eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list notified at the commencement of the recruitment process cannot be changed in between. This Court held that the law laid down in the above judgment cannot be applied in a case where the Recruitment Rules itself have been amended after the recruitment process started and where the recruitment process had been completed on the basis of the earlier Rules and list had also been drawn up and the vacancies notified had also been filled up. After referring to the judgments in Mohanan K.R. (supra) and Raj Kumar (supra) , this Court held that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the Rules in force as on the date a consideration takes place and the Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the Rules and there is no obligation on the Government to make appointments as per the old Rules in the event the restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. In the above circumstances, the decision of the 1 st respondent not to fill up the vacancy when it arose on 1.6.2024 and to fill up the vacancy after the amendment was carried out in the Rules, cannot in any manner be faulted and the petitioner has no indefeasible right to be considered for promotion under the earlier Rules. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.