1986 (12) TMI 366 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of retrospective amendment of Rule 6(b) of the Class I Rules.
2. Impact of the amendment on conditions of service under the proviso to Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
3. Permissibility of retrospective amendments under Article 309 of the Constitution.
4. Allegations of arbitrariness and mala fides in issuing the amendment.

Summary:

1. Constitutional Validity of Retrospective Amendment:
The petitions challenge the constitutional validity of a notification issued by the State Government of Haryana on June 22, 1984, which retrospectively amended Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964, making a degree in Engineering essential for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Class I service. The amendment was claimed to nullify the Supreme Court's decision in A.S. Parmar v. State of Haryana, which held that a degree in Engineering was not essential for such promotion.

2. Impact on Conditions of Service:
The petitioners argued that the retrospective amendment of Rule 6(b) varied the conditions of service to their disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Government, as required by the proviso to Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The Court agreed, stating that any rule affecting the right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service and cannot be altered to the disadvantage of the officers without prior Central Government approval.

3. Permissibility of Retrospective Amendments:
The Court acknowledged that while the power to frame rules under Article 309 includes the power to amend them retrospectively, such amendments must not impair vested rights. The retrospective amendment of Rule 6(b) was found to be unconstitutional as it sought to take away the eligibility of diploma-holders for promotion, which they had under the unamended rules.

4. Allegations of Arbitrariness and Mala Fides:
The petitioners contended that the retrospective amendment was arbitrary, irrational, and mala fide, aiming to circumvent the Supreme Court's direction to consider all eligible officers for promotion. The Court found the amendment to be unreasonable and a violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, as it sought to render diploma-holders ineligible for promotion retrospectively over a period of 20 years.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared the impugned notification dated June 22, 1984, issued by the State Government of Haryana, as ultra vires and unconstitutional. The petitions were allowed with costs, and the retrospective amendment of Rule 6(b) was struck down.