Case Note & Summary
The case involved a challenge to a notification issued by the Haryana Government that amended Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964, making a degree in Engineering essential for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The petitioners, who were diploma holders and had served in the Irrigation Branch, argued that the amendment was unconstitutional as it was made without the prior approval of the Central Government, as required by the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. They contended that the unamended rule conferred a vested right to promotion based on their service experience, which could not be taken away retrospectively. The respondents claimed that the petitioners were not members of Class II Service on the appointed day and thus the amendment did not apply to them. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal framework, including the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and previous case law, ultimately ruling that the retrospective amendment was invalid as it violated the conditions set forth in the Act and the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed the decision in A.S. Parmar v. State of Haryana, which held that a degree was not necessary for promotion, and declared the impugned notification ultra vires, restoring the petitioners' eligibility for promotion.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Retrospective Amendment - Ultra Vires Notification - Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, Section 82(6) - The Court held that the retrospective amendment to Rule 6(b) of the Class I Rules, which rendered diploma holders ineligible for promotion, was ultra vires as it violated the requirement of prior approval from the Central Government. The amendment was struck down as it altered the conditions of service to the disadvantage of the petitioners without necessary approvals (Paras 1.1, 1.2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the retrospective amendment to Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964 was ultra vires and violated the rights of the petitioners.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the retrospective amendment to Rule 6(b) was ultra vires as it violated Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and restored the petitioners' eligibility for promotion to Executive Engineer.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity
- retrospective amendment
- conditions of service
- vested rights
- approval of Central Government
- Article 309
- Article 14
- Article 16(1)
