Retrospective promotion rules cannot extinguish vested seniority-based consideration rights or violate equality guarantees.

Retrospective amendment of a service rule may be permitted under Article 309, but it cannot extinguish vested promotional rights or operate arbitrarily. The amended Rule 13 of the Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961, which retrospectively extended reservation in promotional posts, was found to impair the accrued right of senior general category officers to be considered for promotion in seniority order, including when juniors were promoted. That retrospective operation was therefore held unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retrospective operation of the amended Rule 13 of the Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961, which extended reservation in promotional posts, was valid when it impaired the vested right of senior general category officers to be considered for promotion and offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Rule 8(1)(b)(i) gave Grade IV officers a statutory right to be considered for promotion in order of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit, and the proviso required consideration of all seniors when a junior was considered. Rule 13, before amendment, did not permit reservation in promotions. The amended Rule 13 was given retrospective effect from 27 November 1972, and its operation would validate promotions already made in favour of junior reserved-category officers while defeating the accrued claim of senior officers. The retrospective amendment was therefore examined against the settled principle that rules made under the proviso to Article 309 may operate retrospectively, but not so as to take away vested rights or to operate arbitrarily in violation of constitutional guarantees. Applying that principle, the Court held that the retrospective amendment could not extinguish the accrued right of senior officers to be considered for promotion when their juniors were promoted.

Conclusion: The retrospective operation of the amended Rule 13 was struck down as unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and the challenge to it succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule made under Article 309 may be given retrospective effect, but retrospective amendment cannot take away vested promotional rights or operate arbitrarily so as to violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

---