Promotional eligibility rules need not require post-degree experience, and a later amendment can govern a pending challenge.

In a promotional recruitment rule for Deputy Director, the Court stated that the prescribed experience for Senior Geologists need not be read as experience acquired only after obtaining the post-graduate degree in Geology, because the language and promotional context did not compel that construction. It further treated the amendment deleting the experience requirement as applicable to the pending challenge, with the result that the revised rule governed the dispute and protected the appellant's promotion, as he was the senior-most Senior Geologist and no disqualification was shown under the amended provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Rule 3(1) of the Maharashtra Ground Water Service, Class I (Recruitment) Rules, 1976, the experience prescribed for promotion to Deputy Director had to be acquired only after obtaining the post-graduate degree in Geology; (ii) whether the amendment deleting the experience requirement for promotion applied to the pending case and validated the appellant's promotion.

Issue (i): Whether, under Rule 3(1) of the Maharashtra Ground Water Service, Class I (Recruitment) Rules, 1976, the experience prescribed for promotion to Deputy Director had to be acquired only after obtaining the post-graduate degree in Geology.

Analysis: The rule was examined in the setting of promotion from Senior Geologists under clause (a), which originally referred to the qualifications mentioned in clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (c). The Court held that, although experience normally follows acquisition of the prescribed qualification in a recruitment context, that approach was not necessarily warranted for a promotional post. The language of the rule and the nature of the promotional channel did not compel reading the experience requirement as experience gained only after the post-graduate degree.

Conclusion: The experience requirement was not to be rigidly construed as post-degree experience for promotion, and the earlier dismissal of the appellant's challenge could not stand on that interpretation.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment deleting the experience requirement for promotion applied to the pending case and validated the appellant's promotion.

Analysis: The amendment substituted clause (a) so as to retain only sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) for promotion and to delete the requirement of ten years' experience under sub-clause (iii). The Court treated the amendment as retroactive in effect for the pending dispute and noted that the appellant was the senior-most Senior Geologist and nothing on record disqualified him under the amended rule. In these circumstances, the amended provision governed the appeal arising from the promotion challenge.

Conclusion: The amendment applied to the pending case, and the appellant's promotion stood protected under the amended rule.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the appellant's promotion succeeded, while the earlier appeal concerning the separate writ petition based on the pre-amendment rule did not survive in his favour.

Ratio Decidendi: In a promotional recruitment rule, experience need not invariably be read as experience acquired only after the prescribed academic qualification, and a pending challenge may be decided by a retroactive amendment removing the disputed eligibility condition.

---