Prospective rule-making and service seniority: retrospective operation failed, while the seniority-linked delegation survived scrutiny.

Article 148(5) was treated as conferring only prospective rule-making power, so the 1974 Rules could not validly be given retrospective effect through a deeming clause. Paragraph 143 of the Manual of Standing Orders remained an administrative instruction and did not acquire statutory force under the relevant preserved-service provisions, so it could be amended by correction slip. Rule 7(2), which linked seniority to appointments under Rule 6, was not struck down for excessive delegation because the power was vested in a high constitutional authority and was neither arbitrary nor unguided. The retrospective component failed, while the challenge to Rule 7(2) did not.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the President could frame service rules under Article 148(5) of the Constitution of India with retrospective effect and whether the deeming provision in Rule 1(2) of the 1974 Rules was valid. (ii) Whether paragraph 143 of the Manual of Standing Orders had acquired statutory force so as to be immune from amendment by a correction slip. (iii) Whether Rule 7(2) of the 1974 Rules, which linked seniority to appointments made under Rule 6, suffered from excessive delegation.

Issue (i): Whether the President could frame service rules under Article 148(5) of the Constitution of India with retrospective effect and whether the deeming provision in Rule 1(2) of the 1974 Rules was valid.

Analysis: The power under Article 148(5) was held to be distinct from the rule-making power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Unlike rules made under the proviso to Article 309, the power under Article 148(5) contained no indication that rules were meant to operate retrospectively or as interim substitutes pending legislation. The constitutional setting and language of Article 148(5) supported only prospective operation.

Conclusion: The deeming provision giving the 1974 Rules retrospective operation was ultra vires, and the rules could not operate from 27 July 1956.

Issue (ii): Whether paragraph 143 of the Manual of Standing Orders had acquired statutory force so as to be immune from amendment by a correction slip.

Analysis: Paragraph 143 originated as an administrative instruction and never acquired statutory character under the Government of India Act, 1919, Section 252 of the Government of India Act, 1935, or Article 313 of the Constitution of India. Those provisions preserved existing conditions of service but did not convert a departmental instruction into a statutory rule.

Conclusion: Paragraph 143 remained a departmental instruction and could validly be amended by the correction slip issued by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Issue (iii): Whether Rule 7(2) of the 1974 Rules, which linked seniority to appointments made under Rule 6, suffered from excessive delegation.

Analysis: The power conferred on the Comptroller and Auditor-General was entrusted to a high constitutional authority heading an important department of the State. The delegation was not shown to be arbitrary or unguided, and the rule merely operated within the service framework created by the 1974 Rules.

Conclusion: Rule 7(2) was not invalid on the ground of excessive delegation.

Final Conclusion: The retrospective part of the 1974 Rules failed, but the respondents could not claim seniority weightage on the basis of length of service, and the challenge to Rule 7(2) also failed; accordingly, the appeals succeeded and the writ petitions did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule-making power that is not expressly or impliedly retrospective authorises only prospective subordinate legislation, and a preserved administrative instruction does not become a statutory rule merely because later constitutional or statutory provisions continue existing service conditions.

---