Promotion rights are determined by the rules in effect at the time of consideration, not necessarily by those when vacancies arose.

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. 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 vacan