1. A Government servant's legal position is one of status governed by statutes and rules which the State may alter unilaterally. Mere appointment or participation in a test does not create a vested right to a specific promotion post under repealed or superseded rules unless fairness is violated.
2. It is no longer settled law that vacancies must be filled based on the rules existing when the vacancy arises. A candidate has a right to be considered for promotion under the rules in force on the date the promotion consideration takes place. The principle that old vacancies must be filled under old rules is impliedly overruled.
3. The State is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill vacancies arising prior to an amendment of recruitment rules. The guiding touchstone is Article 14; the policy must be fair, reasonable, and justified.
4. Mere existence of a vacancy or successful completion of training under old rules does not confer an automatic right to promotion. The State is not under a statutory duty to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to an amendment unless a specific statute mandates it.
5. When the Supreme Court dismisses a special leave petition without granting liberty to the parties to pursue the matter with the concerned authority, a High Court cannot revisit the questions of law or fact decided in that earlier judgment.
6. In the present batch of writ petitions, the selection list of 2007 was legally held to have lapsed after three years. The State's decision to frame new recruitment rules in 2021 and issue fresh promotional tests for candidates meeting the new criteria is a valid exercise of executive power and is not liable to be interfered with.
