2010 (5) TMI 805 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Forest Range Officers who secured Honours in their batches in the Rangers Training Course shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant Conservators and after deputation to join the two years course of State Forest Service Colleges run by the Government of India, will be treated as direct recruits to the post of Assistant Conservators? Whether no scope for taking a view that the proviso to Rule 2 as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 51 is not a rule relating to appointment of Forest Rangers as Assistant Conservators?

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Validity of retrospective amendments to Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51.
2. Requirement of publication of amendments in the Official Gazette.
3. Impact of retrospective amendments on vested rights and seniority of government servants.

Detailed Analysis

1. Validity of Retrospective Amendments to Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51

The appellants challenged the amendments to Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules introduced by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51, which were given retrospective effect from 08.04.1986. The appellants contended that these amendments adversely affected their seniority and vested rights. The court examined the amendments and concluded that they were made in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The court held that the amendments were valid and could have retrospective effect as there was no specific mode of publication prescribed under Article 309.

2. Requirement of Publication of Amendments in the Official Gazette

The appellants argued that the amendments should have been published in the Official Gazette to be effective. They relied on Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act and a previous decision in I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards & Anr. v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. & Ors. The court, however, clarified that Section 21 did not apply to rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that while rules made under Article 309 must be published in some reasonable manner to inform affected parties, there was no mandatory requirement for publication in the Official Gazette. The court found that the amendments were reasonably published and made known to the affected parties.

3. Impact of Retrospective Amendments on Vested Rights and Seniority of Government Servants

The appellants argued that the retrospective amendments affected their vested rights and seniority, making them unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution. They cited the decision in Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. to support their claim that retrospective rules affecting seniority were invalid. The court, however, referred to a three-Judge Bench decision in S. S. Bola & Ors. v. B.D. Sardana & Ors., which held that seniority is not a vested right and can be affected by retrospective legislation. The court concluded that the amendments did not violate the Constitution as they were made under the proviso to Article 309 and did not infringe any vested rights.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the retrospective amendments to Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51. The court found that the amendments were validly made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, did not require publication in the Official Gazette, and did not violate any vested rights or seniority of the appellants. The court emphasized that seniority is not a vested right and can be affected by retrospective rules made under Article 309.