Timely departmental exam compliance and prospective operation of subordinate rules barred reversion and loss of promotion benefits.

Timely appearance for a prescribed departmental examination satisfied the service requirement where the employees had taken the test within the stipulated period and the delayed communication of results was beyond their control; their reversion on that ground was therefore unsustainable. A Government Resolution of 2017 could not be applied retrospectively to undo already accrued promotional status, especially without a show-cause notice or hearing, because a subordinate instrument operates prospectively unless clear retrospective intent appears. The adverse reversion and related actions were quashed, and the employees were entitled to restoration of their earlier status with consequential benefits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners' reversion on the ground of non-compliance with the prescribed time for passing the departmental examination was sustainable when they had appeared within time and the results were communicated later. (ii) Whether the Government Resolution of 2017 could be applied retrospectively to justify reversion and consequential loss of promotional status without notice or hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners' reversion on the ground of non-compliance with the prescribed time for passing the departmental examination was sustainable when they had appeared within time and the results were communicated later.

Analysis: The rules required an employee to pass the examination within the stipulated chances and period, and also empowered extension of time in appropriate cases. Both petitioners had appeared for the examination within the prescribed period. The belated communication of the results by the administrative office did not alter the fact that they had taken the examination in time and had cleared it. Since the delay in declaration and communication of results was beyond their control, the situation attracted the principle that the law does not compel performance of an impossible act.

Conclusion: The reversion on this ground was not justified and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the Government Resolution of 2017 could be applied retrospectively to justify reversion and consequential loss of promotional status without notice or hearing.

Analysis: The Government Resolution contained no express or implied retrospective operation. A subordinate instrument is ordinarily prospective unless made retrospective by clear language or necessary implication. The petitioners had already passed the examination and been promoted before the Resolution was invoked against them. In addition, no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing had been afforded before the adverse action was taken, which made the action unfair and arbitrary.

Conclusion: The Government Resolution could not be applied retrospectively, and the impugned action was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to restoration of their earlier status with consequential benefits, and the adverse order and follow-on actions were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated administrative communication of examination results cannot defeat timely compliance with a statutory examination requirement, and a subordinate governmental resolution cannot be applied retrospectively to undo vested service benefits absent clear authority and observance of fairness.

---