As per case facts, petitioners, Social Education and Panchayat Officers (SEPOs) since 2021, challenged a 2019 amendment to the Haryana Development and Panchayats Rules, 2016, and a subsequent advertisement for ... Block Development & Panchayat Officers (BDPOs). The amendment allowed 50% of promotion quota posts to be filled by direct recruitment if eligible SEPOs were unavailable, which the petitioners argued curtailed their promotion avenues and violated Article 14. They contended the proviso went against the main rule, which provided a 50% promotion quota, and that direct recruits would have longer tenure, leaving no posts for them by 2028 when they become eligible. The question arose whether the proviso to Rule 9(1)(c) of the 2016 Rules, allowing direct recruitment against promotion quota in case of non-availability of eligible promotees, was ultra vires the Constitution and unlawfully curtailed promotion opportunities. Finally, the High Court held that the State Government has the power to frame and amend rules under Article 309, and judicial review is limited. The Court found a clear nexus between the amendment and the purpose of filling vacant BDPO posts due to a paucity of eligible SEPOs. It clarified that a proviso can carve out an exception in certain circumstances and in this case, the main rule's intent of a promotion quota was preserved for future eligible candidates. Thus, the challenge to the amendment and the advertisement was dismissed.