K N MATHUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point involved for decision in both these petitions is the effect of the amendment made in the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 by the Rajasthan Forest Service (Amendment) Rules, 1985. THEse amendments were made in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by Notification dated June 22, 1985 published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary dated June 26, 1985. According to clause l (ii) of these amendments they came into force on the date of their publication in the Rajasthan Gazette. THE contention of the petitioners is that these amendments are merely declaratory and must be deemed to declare the position existing under the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 even prior to these amendments. THE question is, whether this contention can be accepted.

(2.) THE petitioners in both these petitions applied for selection for the Diploma Course in Forestry and after being so selected and getting the Diploma, were appointed to the Service as provided in rule 32 (2) of the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962. This is clear from the documents filed with the petition. THE petitioners however claim that their appointment to the service should be treated as commencing with their initial selection for the Diploma Course in Forestry and not from the date of their appointment to the service after obtaining the Diploma. In short, the contention is that the period spent by them as candidates for the Diploma Course should be treated as a part of their service for all purposes. THE consequence of the amendments made in 1985 is to this effect, but prior to these amendments this was not the position. It is for this reason that the petitioners contended that the amendments of 1985 should be treated merely as declaratory of the earlier position.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also contended that this results in discrimination of appointees to the same Service, in as much as the training period is included in the Service of persons governed by the 1985 amendments while it is not included in the case of earlier appointees. He also contended that making these amendments prospective and not retrospective is discriminatory. It is sufficient to say that no provision is to be treated as retrospective unless it has been made retrospective. Accordingly, not making any amendment in the Rules retrospective is by itself not discriminatory. There is also no discrimination for the other reason suggested by learned counsel. Persons recruited to the Service after the amendments came into force have obviously to be governed by the Rules under which they were appointed as the appointees prior to the amendments are to be governed by the un-amended rules. The two categories being distinct there is no question of any hostile discrimination on this ground. This contention is also rejected.