Retrospective service-rule amendments under Article 309 upheld; seniority is not a vested right and publication requirements were satisfied.

Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 were held to operate without any special publication requirement where no mode is prescribed, so publication through the Government Orders was sufficient and separate Official Gazette publication of the retrospective clause was unnecessary. The Court also held that seniority in service is not a vested or accrued right, so a retrospective amendment altering seniority does not fail merely because it affects future promotional prospects. On the amended text of G.O.Ms. No. 51, the provision was treated as a rule of appointment, not a mere training measure, because it made eligible Forest Range Officers direct recruits to the post of Assistant Conservators of Forests.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrospective effect given to the amendments to Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1965 required separate publication in the Official Gazette beyond publication of the Government Orders. (ii) Whether retrospective amendment affecting seniority of Government servants was invalid as infringing vested or accrued rights. (iii) Whether the amendment by G.O.Ms. No. 51 was confined to training and did not amount to a rule of appointment of Forest Range Officers as Assistant Conservators of Forests.

Issue (i): Whether the retrospective effect given to the amendments to Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1965 required separate publication in the Official Gazette beyond publication of the Government Orders.

Analysis: The amendment was made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rules framed under that proviso become operative by virtue of the constitutional power itself, and the Court held that Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act had no application to such rules. Since Article 309 does not prescribe any special mode of publication for rules made under its proviso, publication in a reasonable and recognized manner was sufficient.

Conclusion: The requirement of separate publication of the retrospective clause in the Official Gazette was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether retrospective amendment affecting seniority of Government servants was invalid as infringing vested or accrued rights.

Analysis: The Court reconciled earlier authorities and held that seniority in a cadre is not a vested or accrued right. A retrospective rule or statutory change may alter seniority, and such alteration does not by itself violate the Constitution merely because future promotional prospects are affected. The larger Bench view in S. S. Bola was preferred over the contrary understanding pressed by the appellants.

Conclusion: The challenge to the retrospective amendment on the ground of infringement of vested or accrued rights failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the amendment by G.O.Ms. No. 51 was confined to training and did not amount to a rule of appointment of Forest Range Officers as Assistant Conservators of Forests.

Analysis: Reading Rule 2 as amended, the proviso expressly declared that Forest Range Officers securing honours in their batches in the Rangers' Training Course would be eligible for appointment as Assistant Conservators, would be deputed for the two-year course, and would be treated as direct recruits. The rule was thus one relating to appointment, not merely training.

Conclusion: The contention that the amendment dealt only with training was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The amendments to Rule 2 were upheld and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution require only reasonable publication where no statutory mode is prescribed, and seniority in service is not a vested right that cannot be altered by a valid retrospective rule.

---