Temporary officiating promotions confer no vested right; retrospective service rules were upheld and the reversion sustained.

Temporary officiating promotions to Upper Division Clerk and Assistant posts did not create a vested right to continue in those higher posts, because the orders were expressly temporary and part of an evolving service structure. On that basis, the consequential reversion was valid. The service scheme could also be given retrospective effect, since rules made under the proviso to Article 309 may operate retrospectively where the rule-making authority clearly so intends and no contrary legislative provision exists. The challenge under Articles 14 and 16 failed because the scheme was within the authorised rule-making power and the petitioners did not meet its requirements. The impugned scheme and reversion orders were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners' promotions as Upper Division Clerks and later as Assistants were permanent appointments so as to make their reversion illegal. (ii) Whether the Railway Board had power to frame the service scheme with retrospective effect from an earlier date under the constitutional and statutory framework.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners' promotions as Upper Division Clerks and later as Assistants were permanent appointments so as to make their reversion illegal.

Analysis: The promotions were made against a background of an evolving service structure and were expressly described in the relevant orders as temporary, officiating, and short-term arrangements pending regular constitution of the service. The later scheme, read with its modification, treated regular appointments as operating from the initial constitution date and required seniority-based adjustments in accordance with the scheme. On that footing, the petitioners could not claim a vested right to continue in the higher posts merely because they had officiated for a long period.

Conclusion: The reversion was valid, and the petitioners had no enforceable right to retain the higher posts.

Issue (ii): Whether the Railway Board had power to frame the service scheme with retrospective effect from an earlier date under the constitutional and statutory framework.

Analysis: The governing framework permitted the President, or an authorised authority, to make rules regulating recruitment and service conditions until legislation otherwise provided. In the absence of any contrary legislative enactment, rules made under the proviso to Article 309 could operate retrospectively if the intention was from the scheme. The impugned scheme was held to be within the Railway Board's rule-making power under the service code and not inconsistent with the Constitution. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14 and 16 also failed because the petitioners did not satisfy the scheme's requirements.

Conclusion: The Railway Board had authority to frame the scheme with retrospective effect, and the challenge to its validity failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned service scheme and the consequential reversion orders were upheld, and the petitions failed in their entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a contrary legislative provision, rules made under the proviso to Article 309 by an authority may validly operate retrospectively if the rule-making authority has clearly indicated such operation, and temporary officiating appointments do not create a vested right to hold the post.

---