Retrospective service rule amendment upheld where no vested promotion right had crystallized and imbalance among feeder categories needed correction

A retrospective amendment to recruitment rules for Assistant Registrar did not infringe vested rights because service law protects only a right to be considered under the applicable rules, not a vested right to promotion or a mere chance of selection. Since no promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, or other crystallized benefit had accrued before the change, the amendment was upheld. The Court also treated the rule change as a valid policy measure to correct imbalance among feeder categories through rotation-based treatment, holding that constitutionally valid retrospective rule-making may operate where it does not remove an already accrued tangible benefit. The challenge to the amendment therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrospective amendment to the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Registrar was invalid for taking away vested or accrued rights. (ii) Whether the retrospective amendment could be sustained as a valid measure to correct the imbalance among the feeder categories.

Issue (i): Whether the retrospective amendment to the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Registrar was invalid for taking away vested or accrued rights.

Analysis: The right protected in service matters is a right to be considered in accordance with the applicable rules, not a vested right to promotion or a crystallized benefit from a mere chance of selection. Retrospective alteration becomes vulnerable when it withdraws an already granted promotion, seniority, pay scale, substantive appointment, or other concrete benefit. Here, no promotion, seniority, or substantive appointment had crystallized in favour of the affected employees before the amendment, and the change only affected the selection process pending completion.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment did not unlawfully take away any vested or accrued right and was not invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective amendment could be sustained as a valid measure to correct the imbalance among the feeder categories.

Analysis: The amendment created separate rotation-based treatment for the feeder categories to address the disproportionate promotional advantage earlier enjoyed by one category. The change was introduced after considering the promotion statistics and was made effective from a date immediately following the last completed appointment. The Court held that rule-making power under the constitutional framework permits retrospective operation when it is constitutionally valid and when it does not nullify an already accrued tangible benefit.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment was valid and justified as a policy measure to remedy imbalance among the feeder categories.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the challenge to the retrospective amendment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective service-rule amendment is impermissible only when it withdraws an already crystallized benefit such as promotion, seniority, pay scale, or substantive appointment; a mere chance of promotion or pending consideration is not a vested right and may be altered by a constitutionally valid retrospective rule.

---