JUDGMENT :

(A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.)

The short issue in this original petition is as to the applicable rule in regard to the ratio in a matter of promotion to the post of Overseer/Draftsman (Mechanical Grade-II) between direct recruitees and promotees. Prior to 24/9/2010, the ratio was 3:1 between the direct recruitees and the promotes, as per the Special Rules applicable in the Water Resources Department. The Special Rules were amended with effect from 24/9/2010 and ratio was fixed as 1:1 between the direct recruitees and promotees. The total cadre strength is 20.

2. The Kerala Public Service Commission initiated direct recruitment to the above post. The petitioners, applicants before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, who were working in the feeder category of Overseer/Draftsman (Mechanical Grade-III) sought for a declaration that the vacancies will have to be filled in accordance with the ratio based on the amended rules and not based on the unamended rules.

3. As seen from the Government order dated 6/1/2011, the Government had decided to fill the vacancies which arose prior to the amended rules in accordance with the unamended rules.

4. The Tribunal following the Judgment of the Full Bench in Mohanan v. Director of Homoeopathy [2006 (3) KLT 641 (FB)] was of the view that the vacancies that arose during the currency of unamended rules will have to be filled in accordance with the ratio of the relevant rules and, accordingly, dismissed the challenge.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners Ms.Thulasi K. Raj submits that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on Mohanan’s case (supra). According to the learned counsel, Mohanan’s case, in fact, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Y.V.Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao [(1983) 3 SCC 284] wherein the Apex Court held that vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules will have to be filled in accordance with the unamended rules. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the three-bench judgment of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Raj Kumar and Others [(2023) 3 SCC 773] (decided on May 20, 2022) overruling the earlier Division Bench decision in Y.V.Rangaiah case (supra). The learned counsel particularly drew attention of this Court to para.82(1) which reads thus:

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 case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein.

6. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mehaboob P.M. v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC 557] wherein this Court held that Mohanan’s case (supra) cannot be taken as a good law in view of the subsequent three-bench judgment in Rajkumar’s case (supra).

7. We completely agree with the learned counsel Ms.Thulasi K.Raj on the proposition of law as to the rule applicable for filling up the vacancies. It is to be noted that no employee has a vested right for consideration for promotion. The right of employees for promotion is based on extant rule as on the date of consideration for promotion. The Government has every right to take a decision as to the applicability of the rule which would govern the promotion. If the Government takes a conscious decision that the vacancies which arose prior to the amended rules will have to be filled in accordance with the unamended rules, the Court cannot sit on judicial review to overturn the wisdom of the Government. In Rajkumar’s case (supra), the Apex Court in para 82.3 held as follows:

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