Service regulations may revise recruitment standards and withdraw benefits for future employees when backed by valid statutory power.

Amended service regulations prescribing revised qualifications for Junior Assistant and Assistant Lineman posts were upheld because an employer may determine recruitment standards suited to the post, and the changes were not shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional. The withdrawal of free electricity for future incumbents was also upheld because service benefits created by an award may be altered by a valid subsequent settlement, award, or statutory regulation made under delegated legislative power, and distinguishing existing employees from future recruits was held to be a lawful classification. The writ challenge to both regulatory changes therefore failed, and the regulations were treated as legally valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended Regulations dated 17.04.1997 prescribing modified qualifications for recruitment to the posts of Junior Assistants and Assistant Lineman were illegal and unconstitutional. (ii) Whether the amended Regulations dated 17.04.1997 denying free electricity supply to future incumbents were illegal and unconstitutional.

Issue (i): Whether the amended Regulations dated 17.04.1997 prescribing modified qualifications for recruitment to the posts of Junior Assistants and Assistant Lineman were illegal and unconstitutional.

Analysis: The prescribed qualifications were treated as a matter within the employer's domain. The Court relied on the earlier judicial view that the employer is entitled to assess the requirements of the post and prescribe educational or other qualifications suitable for recruitment. Since the same issue had already been upheld in prior proceedings, the amended recruitment qualifications were not found to be arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Conclusion: The challenge to the amended qualifications failed and the issue was answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended Regulations dated 17.04.1997 denying free electricity supply to future incumbents were illegal and unconstitutional.

Analysis: The benefit of free power supply had earlier arisen from an award, but such a settlement or award can be modified by a fresh settlement, award, or valid legislation. The Corporation exercised statutory power under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply (Undertakings) Act, 1948 to amend the service regulations by delegated legislation. The Court held that the amendment had legal force and that existing employees and future employees formed a validly different class, so denial of the benefit to future recruits did not violate Article 14 or Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Conclusion: The challenge to withdrawal of free electricity for future employees failed and the issue was answered against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because both impugned regulatory changes were upheld as lawful and non-violative of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: Service conditions fixed by an award or settlement may be altered by a subsequent valid settlement, award, or statutory regulation made within delegated legislative power, and a classification between existing and future employees is permissible if it has a lawful basis.

---