The main legal point established in the judgment is that vacancies are to be filled based on the law existing at the time of consideration for promotion, and no vested right accrues to the appellant by the time the rule was amended.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. - This order shall dispose of four Letter Patent Appeals under Clause X of letter patent against the judgment dated 03.05.2013 passed by learned Single Judge. All the appeals raise a common issue. Three appeals i.e. LPA Nos.960 of 2013, 16 of 2014 and 262 of 2017 have been filed by different parties in CWP No.5965 of 2011 and LPA No.961 of 2013 arises from an order passed in CWP No.7031 of 2011. Learned Single Judge disposed of both the writ petitions by a common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from LPA No.961 of 2013.

3. The writ petitions were filed challenging the promotion of the private respondents (in the writ petition) to the post of Senior Lecturer on the ground that they were not eligible under the Haryana Technical Education Department (Group A) Service Rules, 1986 (for short, 'the Rules'). Rule 9 prescribing the qualification of Senior Lecturer in Computer Engineering was amended on 11.11.2008 by adding an explanation. Prior to the amendment, experience for appointment was 8 years as lecturer in Computer Engineering. The amendment vide notification dated 11.11.2008 added an explanation, in which it was stated that the term experience shall mean, service rendered in the Department of Technical Education, Haryana after regular appointment on the post.

4. The relevant part of the Rules providing for qualification and experience required for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer and the amendment carried out on 11.11.2008 adding explanation, are extracted below:

"Rule 9 of the Rules

9. xx xx xx

The qualifications prescribed for promotion as Senior Lecturer in Computer Engineering is as under :

Amendment carried out vide notification dated 11.11.2008

"Explanation: The term experience as used here in shall mean service rendered in the Department of Technical Education, Haryana after regular appointment in the post."

5. The Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 21.03.2011 i.e. much after the amendment of the Rules. Earlier to the amendment of the Rule, 8 years experience was required for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer. The private respondents (in the writ petition) did not possess the said experience. It was further not disputed that neither the appellant nor the respondents were eligible for promotion as per the amended Rule.

6. In the writ petition, a legal issue was raised as to whether a vacancy, which arose prior to the amendment of the Rules, is to be filled in terms of the rules existing at that time or rules existing at the time of consideration for the promotion.

7. The learned Single Judge held that none of the private respondents were eligible for promotion even under the un-amended rules at the time when rule was amended and further that the private respondents were wrongly considered for promotion on 21.03.2011 in terms of the un-amended rules.

8. The intra court appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the vacancies which arose earlier to the amendment would not be governed by the un-amended rules. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.21663 of 2008 titled as "Geeta Devi vs. State of Haryana and others" decided on 03.07.2009. It was argued that the Division Bench relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Y.V. Rangaiah vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao, AIR 1983 SC 852 held that post which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rule will be governed by old Rule and not by the amended Rule.

10. On the other hand, learne