Retrospective recruitment rules cannot nullify a binding tribunal decision, and relief may remain confined to one employee.

Retrospective subordinate legislation under Article 309 cannot nullify or render ineffective a concluded and binding tribunal adjudication unless a valid saving or validating provision clearly authorises that result. On that principle, the earlier tribunal direction for subject-wise promotion remained effective and was not displaced by the 1988 Recruitment (Amendment) Rules. The earlier tribunal relief was also construed as personal to Joshi, based on the judgment read as a whole, so other employees could not claim its benefit. The result was that the retrospective amendment did not defeat the prior adjudication, but the earlier relief was not extended beyond Joshi.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 1988 Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, made retrospectively operative, could nullify or render ineffective the earlier binding tribunal decision directing subject-wise promotion. (ii) Whether the benefit of the earlier tribunal decision in Joshi's case could be extended to other employees.

Issue (i): Whether the 1988 Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, made retrospectively operative, could nullify or render ineffective the earlier binding tribunal decision directing subject-wise promotion.

Analysis: The retrospective rule-making power under Article 309 could not be used to defeat a concluded and binding adjudication of the Tribunal. In the absence of a validating clause, the amendment could not operate so as to destroy the effect of the earlier decision or to compel disregard of the directions already issued.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment could not nullify the earlier tribunal judgment, and the Tribunal's view was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit of the earlier tribunal decision in Joshi's case could be extended to other employees.

Analysis: On a reading of the earlier tribunal judgment as a whole, the relief was confined to Joshi alone and was not intended to operate generally for the cadre. The later claimant, therefore, could not derive advantage from that decision.

Conclusion: The benefit of the earlier tribunal judgment was limited to Joshi and was unavailable to other employees, including Dharagupta.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed to the extent it sought interference with the Tribunal's view on retrospectivity, but the earlier relief remained personal to Joshi and could not be claimed by others.

Ratio Decidendi: Retrospective subordinate legislation cannot be used to nullify a binding adjudication unless a valid saving or validating provision clearly authorises such an effect.

---