I. S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the following facts are not in dispute.
(2.) The petitioners who are Accounts Officers (Class II Service) in the Office of the Accountant General of Punjab and Haryana and out of whom Nos. 1 and 4 are working as Deputy Accountant Generals on ad hoc basis and No. 3 is performing the duties of a Welfare Officer a post stated to be equivalent to that of Deputy Accountant General-impugn the action of the respondent authorities in not considering them for promotion to the posts of Assistant Accountant Generals in Class I Service because of the enforcement of Indian Audit and Accounts Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1983. As per these, rules, the petitioners are no more eligible to be promoted to these posts as they have already attained the age of 53 years. In this regard the respondents place specific reliance on clause (2) of Schedule III to these rules wherein it has been laid down as follows:- "A combined eligibility list shall be prepared from among departmental officers borne on the Group B Cadres of the Audit Officers, Accounts Officers find Administrative Officers in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department who have completed 5 years regular continuous service in the grade on the first day of July of the year to which the promotions pertain. Officers who have attained the age of 53 years on the above date shall not be eligible."
(3.) The primary contention of Mr. J. L. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners is that since the vacancies of Assistant Accountant Generals in question undisputably became available during the years 1980 to 1982 and the petitioners are required to be considered against those vacancies, their entitlement to these promotions has to be considered in the light of the Customs & Accounts Service Recruitment Rules, 1938 and the promulgation of the 1983 Rules does not in any way affect their right to be so considered. In support of the stand of his, he places firm reliance on the latest pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V. V. Rangaiah and others Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others, 1983 (3) S. C. C. 284 wherein in somewhat similar situation it has been laid down thus:- "The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules....... We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules.";