D BALA SUBRAMANIAM Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in the writ petitions are the appellants in these writ appeals. THE respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in these Writ Appeals. We are referring to the parties as per their array in the writ petitions. THE matters relate to promptions of Draughtsmen Grade III from the posts of Tracers in the Public Works Department of the State of Tamil Nadu. THE petitioners, though did not possess the requisite qualifications, were regularly appointed in the services as Tracers, relaxing the rules therefor. In February-March, 1975, the petitioners were promoted as Draughtsmen Grade III. It is true that the petitioners did not possess the prescribed qualifications for the posts of Draughtsmen Grade III. But they had, at the time of their promotions, put in more than ten years of experience as Tracers G.O. Ms. No. 2587, Public Works Department, dated 15-7-1950, laid down that the qualifications specified, shall not be necessary for appoint ment as Draughtsmen Grade III in case of ten years of experience as Tracers. This had settled the issue if any, with reference to lack of qualifications on the part of the petitioners for the posts of Draughtsmen Grade III. However, by G.O Mt. No. 1361, Public Works Department, dated 14-8 1981, the petitioners were reverted to the posts of Tracers on the ground of lack of qualifications. THE teamed single Judge-who dealt with the Writ Petitiony, found that G.O. Ms. 1167, Public Works Depart-merit dated 4-8-1976, by its amendments has laid down certain norms and the amendments introduced by the said Government were made effective retrospectively from 17-5-1974 and since the petitioners did not satisfy the norms prescribed, the learned single Judge held that their revisions could not be impeached. Thus, the Writ Petitions were dismissed. THEse Writ Appeals are directed against the common order of the {earned single Judge.

(2.) MR. K.S. Sivasubramanyan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit two points coveting interference at our hands in Writ Appeals. The first point is that on the dates, namely, in February March, 1975, when the petitioners had the benefit of their promotions to the posts of Draughtsmen Grade III. they satisfied the criterion set out in G O. Ms. No. 2587, Public Works Department, dated 15.7.1950 and the amendments introduced by G.O. M-. No. 11 67 Public Works Department, dt. 4-8-1976, even though stated to deflective from 17-5-1974, could not take away the vested and acquired rights of the petitioners in the absence of any specific provisions therein to abrogate such vested and acquired rights. When we assess the facts of these cases, in the light of certain well laid down principles, we are obliged to countenance the first point taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is true that the Government has got a power under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India to make rules and amend the rules giving retrospective effect. None the less, such amendments giving retrospective effect eannot take away the vested rights and further the amendments must be reasonable and not arbitrary. The pover to make rules retrospectively or amend the rules retrospectively is subject to the well recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules should not be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, which affects or impairs vested rights Unless it is specifically Contemplated and provided in the rules themselves to the above effect, the employees who are already promoted as per existing rules and before the amendment of the rules, cannot be deprived of their vested or acquired rights and reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. The above principles have found expression in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in P. D. Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 . The above principles square apply to the facts of the present cases. The amendments of the rules by G.O. Ms. No. 1167, Public Works Department, dated 4-8-1976, though made effective from 17-5-1984, have not specifically made provision to take away and abrogate such acquired and vested rights, as in the case of the petitioners. This is sufficient for the petitioners to succeed in the Writ Appeals. We note that the principles we have been omitted to be taken not of and applied to the facts of the present cases by the learned single Judge and this has given, room for grievances for the petitioners to prefer these Writ Appeals.