Proviso cannot override the main promotion rule; service promotions follow the rule in force on the date of consideration.

Rule 1(g) defined a law degree as one recognised by an Indian University and the Bar Council of India, but the proviso to Rule 6(b)(2) was treated as a limited promotional exception for specified service categories rather than a contradiction of that definition. The governing principle was that a proviso may qualify the main rule without destroying it, so it cannot negate the substantive promotional preference for B.L. degree holders. The applicable promotion rule was the one in force on the date of consideration, and pre-existing vacancies were not required to be filled under the earlier ratio in the absence of a statutory year-wise panel scheme. The 2013 ratio reversal was therefore held unsustainable, while earlier promotions were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Rule 6(b)(2) of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 1955, which enabled promotion of holders of a non-Bar Council recognised law degree, was inconsistent with the definition of law degree in Rule 1(g) and liable to be struck down; (ii) whether the 2013 amendment reversing the promotional ratio between B.L. and B.A.L. degree holders could be applied to vacancies existing prior to the amendment; (iii) whether the proviso could be used to displace the main rule and nullify the promotional preference for B.L. degree holders.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Rule 6(b)(2) of the Madras High Court Service Rules, 1955, which enabled promotion of holders of a non-Bar Council recognised law degree, was inconsistent with the definition of law degree in Rule 1(g) and liable to be struck down.

Analysis: Rule 1(g) defined a law degree as one recognised by an Indian University and by the Bar Council of India. The proviso to Rule 6(b)(2) did not amend that definition; it created a limited exception for promotion in specified feeder categories. The rule-making authority retained the general definition while carving out a promotional concession for service exigency and to avoid stagnation. The proviso was therefore construed as an exception to the main enactment and not as a contradiction of it.

Conclusion: The challenge to the proviso on the ground of inconsistency with Rule 1(g) was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the 2013 amendment reversing the promotional ratio between B.L. and B.A.L. degree holders could be applied to vacancies existing prior to the amendment.

Analysis: The right to be considered for promotion accrues when consideration takes place, not necessarily when the vacancy arises, unless the governing rules require preparation of a year-wise panel or similar statutory exercise. Here, no such statutory duty existed. The applicable rule was the rule in force on the date of consideration, and the amendment had already come into force when promotions were made.

Conclusion: The contention that pre-existing vacancies had to be filled under the earlier ratio was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the proviso could be used to displace the main rule and nullify the promotional preference for B.L. degree holders.

Analysis: A proviso ordinarily qualifies or excepts from the main provision and cannot be construed so as to destroy the substantive rule. The 2013 amendment changed the balance so that the exception became dominant, reversing the original scheme under which B.L. degree holders constituted the principal eligible class and B.A.L. degree holders were a limited exception. That reversal exceeded the permissible scope of the proviso and undermined the main rule.

Conclusion: The 2013 amendment reversing the ratio was unsustainable and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners succeeded in challenging the 2013 ratio reversal, and the earlier promotional balance was restored, while past promotions were not disturbed for the sake of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: A proviso may create only a limited exception to the main provision and cannot be interpreted so as to negate or supersede the substantive rule; promotion claims are governed by the rules in force on the date of consideration unless a statutory scheme requires otherwise.

---