| Headnote |
Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department - (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964: Rule 6(b)-Haryana State amendment with retrospective effect declared ultra vires. Punjab Reorganisation Act, I966: s.82(6), proviso-Service conditions of persons serving in composite State of Punjab-Alteration of-Approval of Central Government mandatory. Civil Services. Benefits acquired under existing service rules cannot be taken away by amendment of rules with retrospective effect. Constitution of India, Article 309, proviso-Service Rules Amendment of with retrospective effect-Must satisfy tests of Articles 14 and 16(1). The proviso to sub-s.(6) of s.82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 mandates that the conditions of service applicable to any person referred to in sub-s.(1) or sub-s.(2) shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964, as it stood at the relevant time, provided that in case of appointment by promotion from Class II Service no person shall be appointed unless he has completed in that Class of Service for a period of ten years from the commencement of these Rules, six ,years service and after that period eight years service. The Governor of Haryana by a notification dated 22nd June,1984 amended the above Rules by inserting the words 'in addition to the qualifications prescribed in clause (a) after the words "eight years service" in cl(b) of r.6 with retrospective effect from July 10, 1964 thereby making a degree in Engineering essential for promotion to the .post of Executive Engineer in Class I service. Rule 3(c) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1941 had enjoined that no person shall he appointed to the service unless he possessed one of the University degrees or other qualifications prescribed. The proviso to r.5 however, laid down that that rule may be relaxed by Government on the recommendations of the Chief Engineers in order to admit the promotion of a member of the Overseers Engineering Service of outstanding merit who may not possess the qualifications specified in rule 3. The petitioners, who are Engineering Diploma holders, were appointed to Class III Overseers Engineering Service (Irrigation Branch) in the erstwhile State of Punjab in the year 1953, 1949 and 1952 respectively. In due course they were promoted as Sub-Divisional Officers in Class II service and were eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Class I service under the unamended rule 6(h) having more than eight years service in Class II service. In A.S. Parmar v. State of Haryana, [1984] 2 SCR 476 this Court interpreting the unamended rule 6(b) had held that a degree in Engineering was not an essential qualification for promotion of Class II Officers to the cadre of Executive Engineer in Class I service. But just before they were about to be promoted the State of Haryana issued the impugned notification rendering them inelligible.Aggrieved by the said notification they filed these writ petitions under Art.32 of the Constitution. It was contended for them that the impugned notification purporting to amend r.6(b) of Class I Rules with retrospective effect was ultra vires the State Government being contrary to the proviso to s.82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, that the unamended r.6(b) had conferred a vested right of promotion on them which could not be taken away by retrospective amendment under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, that a retrospective amendment taking away eligibility for promotion from a back date ranging ( over 20 years and thereby rendering invalid the promotions already made was constitutionally impermissible, and that the action of the Government in making such retrospective amendment to nullify the decision in Parmar's case was wholly arbitrary, irrational and malafide and thus violative of Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. For the respondents it was contended that the proviso to s. 82(6) was not attracted to the facts of the case since on the appointed day, that is, November 1, 1966 the petitioners were not members of Class II Service. They ·were then Supervisors belonging to Class III Service, 'and, therefore, were not governed by the unamended r.6(b). It was further contended that under r.3(c) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II P.W .D (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1941 a degree in Engineering was essential till the 1970 Rules brought about a change. Inasmuch as none of the petitioners had the requisite qualifications, they could not become members of Class II Service. It was strenuously contended that the decision in A.S. Parmar v. State of Haryana was incorrect. |
