Rules in force as on date of advertisement is relevant, not the year of vacancy except where the said rule provides special provision for vacancy year. It is not understood what exactly you want to search from the decision of Hon SC.
New amended RRs qualifies Assistant Engineers who served only 3 years and disqualifies Direct recruited and and more senior Assistant Engineers who had served almost 6 years. Senior Assistant Engineers are keen to challenge DPC if there is any SC's judgement to protect seniority.
It is settled law that rules can be challenged on three grounds, i.e arbitrariness, irrationality and unconstitutionality. As you say, since seniors have been ignored, prima facie there appears a good case to challenge the rule. But before challenging the rule, the complete rule need be critically read and understood / interpreted in proper perspective since it is easy to challenge but difficult to prove.
Thanks a lot for your wonderful legal advice. We have challenged the same before lockdown. We are fighting on the same ground. But there is a general saying that, getting relief to stay RRs is very very rare. Can you refer any judgement of similar petition ?
If stay is allowed, there would be irreparable loss to State. Moreover balance of convenience is also in favour State. If after the disposal of case you can be compensated, there is no reason why Court would stay operation of the rule. So stay is not possible. Even if you get it, it can be easily vacated in appeal.