Retrospective service-rule changes on promotion eligibility cannot defeat accrued rights or operate without required Central Government approval.

A retrospective amendment to service rules that made a degree in Engineering essential for promotion was invalid because it varied protected service conditions to the disadvantage of the affected officers without the prior approval of the Central Government required by the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The change also could not constitutionally extinguish an accrued right to be considered for promotion, since retrospective rule-making under Article 309 remains subject to Articles 14 and 16(1) and cannot operate arbitrarily or unfairly. The impugned notification was therefore void and struck down.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrospective amendment of Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964, making a degree in Engineering essential for promotion, was invalid for want of previous approval of the Central Government under the proviso to Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. (ii) Whether the retrospective amendment could lawfully take away the petitioners' eligibility and right to be considered for promotion, or was unconstitutional as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 imposes a restriction on variation to the disadvantage of persons whose service conditions stood protected on reorganisation, and any alteration of conditions of service affecting promotion required previous approval of the Central Government. The impugned notification altered the criteria for promotion from Class II to Class I service with retrospective effect and directly rendered diploma-holder officers ineligible for promotion, thereby varying their conditions of service to their disadvantage. No previous approval of the Central Government had been obtained.

Conclusion: The amendment was invalid under the proviso to Section 82(6) and was void for want of Central Government approval.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective amendment, though made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, could extinguish an accrued right to be considered for promotion and survive scrutiny under Articles 14 and 16(1).

Analysis: While rule-making power under Article 309 includes power to amend service rules retrospectively, that power cannot be used to destroy accrued or vested rights, and retrospective changes affecting promotion must satisfy constitutional standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness. The petitioners had already acquired eligibility under the unamended rule and had a right to be considered for promotion on the basis then prevailing. The amendment, by operating retrospectively over a long period and disqualifying them after the event, was unreasonable and arbitrary.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment could not validly take away the petitioners' accrued promotional entitlement and was constitutionally impermissible.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notification was struck down, and the petitioners succeeded in challenging the retrospective change in promotion qualifications.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective service-rule amendment that alters promotion eligibility to the disadvantage of protected employees is invalid if it varies conditions of service without the required prior approval and cannot constitutionally extinguish accrued rights or operate arbitrarily.

---