ORDER

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, made on August 30, 1996 in writ Petition No.3759/95.

3. The admitted position is that for nine vacancies existing and anticipated as on April 1, 1995, the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, the "DPC") was convened on April 13, 1995 and it selected nine candidates including respondent Nos. 12 and 13, viz., B.S. Bhatnagar and H.L. Meena (ST) respectively. The other respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court impugning their appointments based on Rule 24-A of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Building and Roads Branch) Rules, 1954 (as amended) (for short, the Rules ). The only question is : whether the appointment of the said respondents, viz., B.S. Bhatnagar and H.L. Meena, is made in accordance with the Rules.

4. Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State, contends that under Rule 9 of the Rules, subject to the provisions therein, the appointing authority shall determine as on the first day of the financial year, i.e., commencing from 1st April of ensuing year and ending with 31st March of successive year, the number of vacancies, actual or anticipated, occurring during the financial year. They are required to be considered by the DPC constituted in that behalf as per the criteria prescribed in Rule 23 of the Rules. In accordance therewith, for the nine existing and anticipated vacancies, the DPC considered the claims of all the eligible candidates, as per the Rules then existing and selected them. A list of selected candidates is contained in the minutes of the DPC held on April 13, 1995. As per the criteria then existing, B.S. Bhatnagar (General) and H.L. Meena (Reserved), were selected on merit. As a consequence, they were appointed by promotion in accordance with the Rules, though Rule 23-A and Rule 24-A came to be introduced by statutory amendment w.e.f. July 24, 1995. Shri Jayant Das, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 13, promotee-respondent, contends that under Rule 23 of the Rules, the criteria prescribed as on the date of the selection by the DPC is required to be applied. Since the existing criteria had been applied, their selection was correct in law. Consequently, the vacancies which arise during that financial year were required to be filled up from amongst the respondents.

5. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, who had filed the writ petition, contends that in view of the fact that amendment of Rules has been made effective by clause 1(ii) with immediate effect, the amended Rules having come into force from July 24, 1995, public policy demands and the Government is required to apply the criteria prescribed in the amended law. It should be applied as indicated in column in Rule 2(iii) thus :

"2(iii) in column numbers 2 and 4 against serial No. 2 after the words "Addl. Chief Engineer" and "Superintending Engineers" the expression "(Civil)" shall be added and in column No. 5 the following new entry shall be inserted:-

"Must hold a degree in Engineering (Civil) of a University established by law in India or qualification declared equivalent thereto by Government with 5 years service as Superintending Engineer (Civil)"

(iv) After serial number 2, the following new serial number and entries thereto shall be inserted, namely:-

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

"2-A Addl. 100% by Superintending Must hold a Chief promotion Engineer degree in (Mechanical) (Mechanical) Engineering           (Mechanical)      of a University      established by law in India