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 The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government . [ K. Ramulu v. S. Suryaprakash Rao , (1997) 3 SCC 59, paras 12 & 13; Shyama Charan Dash v. State of Orissa , (2003) 4 SCC 218, para 9; State of Punjab v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal , (2007) 10 SCC 402, para 38; Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. , (2011) 6 SCC 725, para 28]. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old Rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. [ G. Venkateshwara Rao v. Union of India , (1999) 8 SCC 455, para 4]. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14. [ Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram , (1998) 4 SCC 202, para 15; K. Ramulu v. S. Suryaprakash Rao , (1997) 3 SCC 59, para 15]. 82.4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately. [ Delhi Judicial Services Assn. v. Delhi High Court , (2001) 5 SCC 145, para 5]. 82.5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases [ Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. , (2011) 6 SCC 725, para 25]. 83. The above-referred observations made in the fifteen decisions that have distinguished Rangaiah case demonstrate that the wide principle enunciated therein is substantially watered-down. Almost all the decisions that distinguished Rangaiah hold that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of law that existed on the date
