https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184086 A retrospective amendment to recruitment rules for Assistant Registrar did not infringe vested rights because service law protects only a right to be considered under the applicable rules, not a vested right to promotion or a mere chance of selection. Since no promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, or other crystallized benefit had accrued before the change, the amendment was upheld. The Court also treated the rule change as a valid policy measure to correct imbalance among feeder categories through rotation-based treatment, holding that constitutionally valid retrospective rule-making may operate where it does not remove an already accrued tangible benefit. The challenge to the amendment therefore failed. en-us Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:09:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184086 A retrospective amendment to recruitment rules for Assistant Registrar did not infringe vested rights because service law protects only a right to be considered under the applicable rules, not a vested right to promotion or a mere chance of selection. Since no promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, or other crystallized benefit had accrued before the change, the amendment was upheld. The Court also treated the rule change as a valid policy measure to correct imbalance among feeder categories through rotation-based treatment, holding that constitutionally valid retrospective rule-making may operate where it does not remove an already accrued tangible benefit. The challenge to the amendment therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184086