Retrospective service-rule amendment governs pending recruitment and participation without protest defeats challenge to screening timing.

A valid retrospective amendment to service rules governed a recruitment process that had not reached finality, so the enhanced women's reservation applied to the pending selection rather than the rule in force when the advertisement was issued. The State was competent to amend the rules retrospectively under Article 309, and no accrued right was taken away because candidates retained eligibility and the right to be considered. The challenge to the second screening test also failed because the same schedule applied to all candidates, there was no discriminatory treatment, and participation without protest precluded objection to the preparation time. The recruitment was therefore to proceed under the amended rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment enhancing reservation for women from 30% to 331/3%, made with retrospective effect during the pendency of selection, governed the recruitment; (ii) Whether the short time given for the second screening test invalidated the selection process.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment enhancing reservation for women from 30% to 331/3%, made with retrospective effect during the pendency of selection, governed the recruitment.

Analysis: Recruitment had not reached finality when the amended rule was brought into force. The State was competent under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to amend service rules retrospectively, and the amended Rule 22-A of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules expressly enhanced women's reservation and validated prior selections. The amendment did not take away any accrued right, as the candidates' eligibility and right to be considered remained intact; only a preferential element in favour of women was altered. Where the rule validly operated retrospectively, the selection had to conform to the amended position and not merely to the rule in force on the date of advertisement.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment applied to the pending selection, and the Tribunal and High Court were in confining reservation for women to 30%.

Issue (ii): Whether the short time given for the second screening test invalidated the selection process.

Analysis: The same time schedule applied to all candidates, a first screening test had already been held, and the appellants participated in the second test without objection. No discriminatory treatment was shown, and no legal right to a longer preparation period was established. In the circumstances, the challenge to the date fixed for the test could not defeat the entire selection process, and the appellants were precluded from attacking it after participating without protest.

Conclusion: The challenge based on the short preparation time failed.

Final Conclusion: The enhanced women's reservation was upheld as applicable to the ongoing recruitment, and the challenge to the selection process on the ground of inadequate preparation time was rejected, leaving the recruitment to proceed in accordance with the amended rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a recruitment process is still pending, a validly made retrospective amendment to service rules governs the selection, and a candidate has no enforceable right to insist on the continued application of the earlier rule merely because the advertisement was issued earlier.

---