JUDGMENT : Vettath Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. These three writ petitions have been heard together since they involve a common question concerning the validity of the State Government's action in amending rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by introducing a second proviso to sub rules (a) and (b) of the said rule with retrospective effect from 17th December 1958. The said amendment was effected as per the notification G.O. (P) No. 426/PD, dated 15th November 1972. 2. Rule 27 lays down the principles for reckoning the seniority of a person in a service, class, category, grade etc. In the rule as it stood prior to the amendment in question there was only one proviso the sub-rules (a) and (b) and those sub-rules together with the said proviso read as follows: “27. Seniority—(a) Seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. If any portion of the service, of such person does not count towards probation under the Rules, his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation. (b) The appointing authority shall, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix the order,of preference among them; and seniority shall be determined in accordance with it: Provided that nothing contained in sub-rules (a) and (b) above shall be deemed to have superseded the orders of the Travancore-Cochin Government in R. Dis. No. 8207/50/CS, dated 7th May 1951 as subsequently clarified in respect of any person who was a member of any service on the date of coming into force of these rules.” By the notification dated 15th November 1972 the rule was amended by adding a second proviso to sub-rules (a) and (b). That proviso is in the following terms: “Provided further that the above said order of the Travancore-Cochin Government as subsequently clarified shall also be applicable to the persons appointed in the State of Kerala before the coming into force of these rules. This amendment shall be deemed to have come into force with effect on and from 17 December 1958.” 3. This amendment shall be deemed to have come into force with effect on and from 17 December 1958.” 3. The State Government has effected the above amendment in exercise of the power conferee on it by section 2 of the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. The principal point raised in these writ petitions is that the second clause of the new proviso which purports to give retrospective operation from 17th December 1958 to the main clause introduced by the amendment is illegal and ultra-vires. It is contended by the petitioners that since the Kerala Public Services Act came into force only on 17th September 1968 a rule framed under the said Act cannot be validly brought into effect from any date anterior to the said date since no subordinate legislation can exist without the parent enactment being in force to give it vitality and support. The petitioners, therefore, submit that the action of the Government in purporting to amend rule 27 with retrospective effect from 17th December 1958 is beyond its competence and is hence void. 4. Before we proceed to discuss the merits of the above contentions it will be useful to state briefly a few facts which constitute the background for the introduction of the aforesaid amendment in the rule. It would appear that prior to the formation of the United State of Travancore-Cochin a principle was being followed in the Travancore Government service to allow senior hands who had been passed over for promotion for want of test qualification to regain their seniority over their erstwhile junior, who had secured earlier promotions by reason of their possessing the test qualification, on the former getting themselves promoted to the higher category after acquiring the test qualification, provided that by that time the juniors had not already been confirmed in the higher post. Subsequent to the integration of Travancore and Cochin this principle was made applicable to all the personnel in the service of the T.C. State as per the T. C. Government order R. Dis. No. 8207/50/C.S. dated 7th May, 1951. Even after the formation of the Kerala State the provisions of the said Government order continued to govern all the persons allotted to Kerala from the erstwhile T.C. State by virtue of the proviso to section 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. No. 8207/50/C.S. dated 7th May, 1951. Even after the formation of the Kerala State the provisions of the said Government order continued to govern all the persons allotted to Kerala from the erstwhile T.C. State by virtue of the proviso to section 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The personnel allotted to this State front Madras were not, however, governed by the said Government order since their terms and conditions of service were regulated by the provisions contained in the relevant rules that were applicable to them in the Madras Service. This was the position until common service rules were formulated by the State of Kerala. Such unified-principles applicable to all the personnel in the service of Kerala Government were promulgated by issuing the Rules on 17th December 1958. However, even while issuing such unified rules the operation of the T.C. Government G.O. dated 7th May 1951 was saved by engrafting a proviso to sub-rules (a) and (b) of rule 27 of the Rules stating that nothing contained in those sub-rules shall be deemed to have superseded the said order of the Travancore-Cochin Government in respect of any person who was already in service on the date of coming into force of the Rules. The effect of the said proviso was clearly to keep alive the provisions of the G.O. dated 7th May, 1951 in respect of persons who were governed by the said order at the time of commencement of the Rules. 5. By two executive orders issued by the State Government as per memos dated 26th July 1961 and 15th September 1961 it was directed that persons appointed into the service of the Kerala Government during the period from 1st November 1956 to 16th December 1958 will also be governed by the Travancore-Cochin Government order dated 7th May 1951 for the purpose of determination of their interse seniority on promotion. Long prior to the passing of those two orders the Rules had come into force and the seniority of such personnel was already governed by the provisions of rule 27. Long prior to the passing of those two orders the Rules had come into force and the seniority of such personnel was already governed by the provisions of rule 27. In P.K. Joseph and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others, 1972 KLT 45 , it was held by a Division Bench of this court that since the effect of the two Government memos aforementioned was to alter the principle laid down in rule 27 with respect to persons appointed into service between 1st November 1956 and 17th December 1958 who were already governed by the said rule and since a statutory rule could not be amended by executive orders the Government memos in question were illegal and void. It was laid down in the said decision that the T.C. Government order dated 7th May 1951 was not applicable to persons appointed into service between 1st November 1956 and 17th December 1958 and that hence the first proviso to rule 27 was also not attracted in their case. It is obviously in the wake of the said pronouncement of this court and with intent to cure the defect pointed out therein that the Government have amended rule 27 by introducing the second proviso to sub-rules (a) and (b) thereof incorporating the principle which had been originally sought to be given effect to by issuing the two Government memoranda. 6. The writ petitioners in these cases are all persons who have entered service under the State Government subsequent to 1st November 1956. If rule 27 had stood in its original form with only the first proviso qualifying sub-rules (a) and (b) the petitioners would not be liable to surrender their seniority in the higher category for the purpose of enabling their erstwhile seniors to regain their original seniority on the strength of the provisions of the Government order dated 7th May 1951 since the said order did not apply to the petitioners. By reason of the introduction of the second proviso in rule 27 with retrospective effect from 17th December 1958 the position has undergone a complete change in regard to most of the writ petitioners since they were appointed into service between 1st November 1956 and 17th December 1958. By reason of the introduction of the second proviso in rule 27 with retrospective effect from 17th December 1958 the position has undergone a complete change in regard to most of the writ petitioners since they were appointed into service between 1st November 1956 and 17th December 1958. Under the newly added proviso the T.C. Government order dated 7th May 1951 is to be regarded as having been applicable to such persons also on 17th December 1958 and hence the first proviso is also attracted in their case. The consequence is that such of the writ petitioners who were appointed into service between 1st November 1956 and 17th December 1958 are now made liable to surrender their seniority in the category to which they had got promoted earlier than their seniors in order to enable the seniors who were passed over for want of test qualification to get a restoration of their original seniority. Thus the amendment has brought about a radical change in the service conditions which were till then applicable to the petitioners and hence it is that they have come up with the challenge against the validity and competence of Government's action in effecting such an amendment with retrospective effect from 17th December 1958. 7. It is doubtless the law that rules framed under the statute cannot become operative before the statute itself comes into force since their life and virility are traceable solely to and wholly dependent on the power conferred on the rule-making authority by the parent enactment. The life and force of the rule are derived only from the statute under which it has been framed. Since the rule is only an off-spring of the statute it is obvious that it can take birth only after the parent enactment has come to life. 8. Such being the true legal position the petitioners will be entitled to succeed in their attack against the impugned amendment in case they are able to show that the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not in force on 17th December 1958 with effect from which date the impugned amendment has been retrospectively brought into force. 9. The Act was published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated 17th September, 1968. Since it consists of only three sections it will be convenient to extract the full test of the statute omitting only the preamble. 9. The Act was published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated 17th September, 1968. Since it consists of only three sections it will be convenient to extract the full test of the statute omitting only the preamble. Sections 1 to 3 reads: “1. Short title—This Act may be called the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. 2. Regulation of recruitment and conditions of service: (1) The Government may make rules either prospectively or retrospectively to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala. (2) Every rule made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before the Legislative Assembly while it is in session for a total period of fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions, and if before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the session immediately following, the Legislative Assembly agrees that the rule should be either modified or annulled, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so however that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule. 3. Continuance of existing rules — All rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India regulating the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been made under this Act as if this Act had been in force on the date on which such rules were made and shall continue to be in force unless and until they are superseded by any rules made under this Act.” Power is conferred on the Government by section 2 to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of services of State Government servants either prospectively or retrospectively. Ordinarily, the said provision should be construed as enabling only the framing of such rules on a future date with retrospective effect from the date of commencement of the parent Act. This position is, however, materially altered by the provisions of section 3. Ordinarily, the said provision should be construed as enabling only the framing of such rules on a future date with retrospective effect from the date of commencement of the parent Act. This position is, however, materially altered by the provisions of section 3. By that section all rules already made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in force immediately before the commencement of the Act with respect to persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala are to be deemed to have been made under the Act, as if the Act had been in force on the date on which such rules were made. The clear intent and effect, of section 3 is that rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution which were applicable to the public services in the State of Kerala on the date of commencement of the Act are all to be treated as rules which were framed under section 2 of the Act even on the dates on which they were originally issued, the Act being regarded for this purpose as having been in force on those relevant dates. When the legal fiction introduced by the deeming provision in section 3 is fully given effect to, as the court is bound to do in law, the Act is to be treated as having been in force when the Rules (K.S.S.R.) were promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Sections 2 and 3 of the Act have to be read in combination for understanding the real scope and ambit of the power conferred by section 2 to make rules retrospectively. The power conferred under section 2 will certainly include authority to amend the existing rules which under section 3 are to be deemed to have been made under the Act and the said power can be exercised with retrospective effect from the date of original promulgation of the Rules since the Act is to be deemed to have been in force on that date. In this view it is clear that the State Government was competent under section 2 of the Act to amend the provisions of rule 27 of the rules with retrospective effect from 17th December 1958 on which date the rules were originally brought into force. In this view it is clear that the State Government was competent under section 2 of the Act to amend the provisions of rule 27 of the rules with retrospective effect from 17th December 1958 on which date the rules were originally brought into force. We accordingly uphold the second proviso to rule 27 introduced by the notification dated 15th November 1972. The contention advanced by the petitioners for challenging the validity of the said provision will stand rejected. 10. The writ petitioner in O.P. No. 1254 of 1972 was appointed to Government service on 28th February 1958. By virtue of the second proviso to rule 27 the T.C. Government order dated 7th May 1951 is, therefore, applicable to him. Similar is the case with the petitioner in O.P. No. 4166 of 1972 who was appointed into service on 2nd may 1958. Both these writ petitioners had superseded some of their seniors in the matter of promotion to the higher category on account of the fact that the petitioners possessed the requisite test qualification while the seniors were not test-qualified. Since both the writ petitioners are now governed by the G. O. dated 7th May 1951 their seniors who have been so passed over for promotion are entitled to be granted the benefit of restoration of their original seniority on their having been subsequently promoted to the higher categories after acquiring the test qualification. That is all that has been done under the orders impugned in these cases. These two writ petitions O.P. Nos. 1254 and 4166 of 1972 are therefore devoid of merits and will stand dismissed. We do not, however, make any order as to costs. 11. There are five writ petitioners in O.P. No. 1779 of 1973. Writ petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed into service on 11th October 1958 and 19th November 1958 respectively. The second proviso to rule 27 is applicable in their cases and by virtue thereof they are now governed by the G. O. dated 7th May 1951. The contention put forward by them that they are not liable to surrender their seniority in the higher category in order to give the benefit of restoration of seniority to their erstwhile seniors who had been passed over for promotion for want of test qualification has only to be rejected for the reasons stated by us while dealing with O.P. Nos. 1254 and 4166 of 1972. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are therefore not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. 12. The position is, however, different with respect to petitioners Nos. 3 to 5. They were appointed into service only after 17th December 1958. Hence the second proviso has no application to them. In the judgment rendered by us in O.P. No. 4590 of 1972 we have held that the seniority and rank of persons who are not governed by the G.O. dated 7th May 1951 is to be determined solely on the provisions contained in sub-rules (a) and (b) of rule 27 and such seniority and ranking cannot be disturbed for the purposes of giving effect to the principle of restoration of seniority laid down in the afroesaid G.O. in respect of persons governed by it. Applying the said dictum to the present case it has to be held that the order Ext. P-2 in so far as it has purported to refix the seniority of petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 by wrongly applying to them the principle laid down in the G. O. dated 7th May 1951 is illegal and will stand quashed to that extent. There will be a direction to respondents Nos. 3 to 5 strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rules (a) and (b) of rule 27. The original petition (O.P. No. 1779 of 1973) is thus allowed in so far as petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 are concerned and it will stand dismissed as regards petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs.