Prospective service rules and eligibility qualifications govern statutory office continuance and appointment; ineligible appointment was quashed.

An amended service rule fixing an upper age limit for Members of the Appellate Board was upheld as a prospective regulation of future continuance in office, not an unconstitutional retrospective divestment of accrued rights. The termination of a sitting member's tenure under that rule was also sustained because he had crossed the prescribed age limit and the cessation was automatic under the governing rule, not punitive, so prior notice was unnecessary. By contrast, the third respondent's appointment was quashed because the post required at least ten years' recognised and registered tax practice, and the material showed that this qualification was not satisfied; a writ of quo warranto was therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended rule prescribing an upper age limit for Members of the Appellate Board was unconstitutional or retrospective in operation. (ii) Whether the order terminating the first petitioner's tenure pursuant to the amended rule was invalid. (iii) Whether the third respondent was eligible to be appointed and continue as Member of the Appellate Board.

Issue (i): Whether the amended rule prescribing an upper age limit for Members of the Appellate Board was unconstitutional or retrospective in operation.

Analysis: Subordinate legislation can be invalidated only on recognised grounds, including constitutional infraction or manifest arbitrariness. The amended provision merely fixed an upper age limit for future continuance in office and did not take away any benefit already earned or accrued before the amendment. A rule that governs future rights of existing holders of office is prospective in effect, even if it applies to persons already in service. The State also retained power to alter service conditions governing a statutory post.

Conclusion: The amended rule was upheld and was held to be prospective in operation.

Issue (ii): Whether the order terminating the first petitioner's tenure pursuant to the amended rule was invalid.

Analysis: Once the amended rule came into force, the first petitioner, who had crossed the prescribed age limit, became ineligible to continue in office. The cessation of his tenure followed from the amended rule and not from any punitive or stigmatic action. In such a case, no prior notice was required, as the order merely gave effect to the expiry of tenure under the governing rule.

Conclusion: The order ending the first petitioner's tenure was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the third respondent was eligible to be appointed and continue as Member of the Appellate Board.

Analysis: The applicable rule required the Member drawn from the legal profession to have at least ten years' experience of practice in taxation matters. Practice in this context meant recognised and registered tax practice, not merely informal appearance in taxation-related work. On the material on record, the third respondent had not been registered as a tax practitioner and therefore did not satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirement. As the statutory qualification was lacking, the appointment could not be sustained and a writ of quo warranto was maintainable.

Conclusion: The third respondent was held ineligible, and his appointment was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rule and to the cessation of the first petitioner's tenure failed, but the challenge to the third respondent's appointment succeeded because he did not satisfy the prescribed qualification for the office.

Ratio Decidendi: A service rule fixing future eligibility and tenure of a statutory office is prospective if it regulates only future continuance and does not divest accrued benefits, and a statutory appointment must satisfy the prescribed qualification on the date of appointment.

---