( 1 ) THESE rune petitions under Art. 226 of the Constn, involve a common question, namely the restive seniority as between direct recruits and promoters in the cadre of Labour Inspectors in the Dept of Labour of the state of Karnataka ( 2 ) AT the commencement of the arguments, Mr. Rama, Jois, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions, submitted that the petitioners were not challenging the ranks assigned to Satnyanarasimha and h. V. Sathyanarayana, (respondents 16 and 17 respectively in each of these petitions) above the petitioners in the seniority list of Labour Inspectors. The petitioners had challenged the rank assigned to T. G. Renukaradhya, (respondent 18 in each of these petitions) above the petitioners in the seniority list of Labour Inspectors. When the learned Addl Got Advocate pointed, out that Renukaradhya had been directly recruited as Asst Labour inspector and was not promoted from the cadre of First Divn Clerks, Mr. Kama Jois am not also challenged the rank assigned to Kenukaradhya, in the seniority list of Labour Inspectors. So the only surviving controversy in these petitions, is as tq the relative seniority as between the nine petitionrts on the one hand and respondents 3 to 10 on the other. ( 3 ) MOST of the material facts a,re nqt in dispute. These nine petitioners were first appointed to the pests of Labour Inspectors as local candidates on different da,les between 19-5-1958 and 24-12-1959. Subsequently, their services were regularised with eiiect from 22-9-1961 in pursuance of the govt order of that date directing regularisation of services of all locan candidates directly recruited to Class III posts and who were continuing in those pqsts and fulfilled certain conditions. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS 3 and 5 to 8 were; First Divn Clerks in the Labour dept of the former State of Mysore and they stood allotted to the new state of Mysore (Karnataka) on re-organisation qf States. Respondents 9 and 15 were Officials in the former State of Cqorg and they stood alloted to the new State of Mysore (Karnataka) wherein they were treated as First divn Clerks. Respondent 10 was an. Upper Divn Clerk in the Labour Dept of the former State of Madras and he stood allqtted tq the new State of mysore (Karnataka) wherein he was treated as First Divn Clerk. Respondent 10 was an. Upper Divn Clerk in the Labour Dept of the former State of Madras and he stood allqtted tq the new State of mysore (Karnataka) wherein he was treated as First Divn Clerk. Respondents 4, 11 and 12 were Second Grade, Clerks in the former State of Hyderabad in the State Labour Services and on re-organisation of States they stood allotted to the new State of Mysore (Karnataka) wherein they were treated as First Divn Clerks. Respondents 13 and 14 were appointed as First Divn clerks in the new State of Mysore (Karnataka) qn or about 27-3-1958 and 1-4-1958 respectively. ( 5 ) THE Comm. of Labour in Karnataka had promoted respondents 3 to, 15 as Labour Inspectors temporarily on different dates between 22-1-1960 and 28-3-1961. He sought for the approval of the Govt for such promotions. However, the Govt did not accord its apprqval for those promotions on the ground that they were not in accordance with the provisions of the, Karnataka labour Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1959. In pursuance of the direction of the Govt, the Commr of Labour issued an office memo dt. 12-2-1965 (Ex. B in each of these petitions) reverting respondents 3 to 15 from the posts of labour Inspectors to the pests of First Divn Clerks. At that stage, respondents 3 to 8 and 10 to 15 presented WPs. 225 and 252 of 1965 before this Court challenging their reversions to the posts of First Divn Clerks. At the hearing of those petitions, the Govt Advocate represented on behalf of the state that those impugned reversions would not be enforced. In view of that representation, this Court dismissed those two writ petitions stating that they did not survive and that no further orders were necessary thereon. ( 6 ) ON 8-3-1967 the Commr of Labour prepared a seniority list of Class iii Officials of the. Labour Dept, appointed after 1-11-1956 as Labour Inspectors. Therein respondents 3 to 15 have been shown above these nine petitioners. ( 7 ) IN thege petitions, , the petitioners have challenged the ranks assigned to respondents 3 to 15 in the aforesaid seniority list. They have also prayed for a direction to the State Govt to place them above respondents 3 to 15 in that seniority list. ( 8 ) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions urged by learned counsel, we shall dispose! They have also prayed for a direction to the State Govt to place them above respondents 3 to 15 in that seniority list. ( 8 ) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions urged by learned counsel, we shall dispose! of a preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondents, that these petitions are highly belated and should be dismissed in limine on that ground. ( 9 ) IN reply tq this preliminary objection, Mr. Rama Jois pointed out that at the foot of the impugned seniority list of Labour Inspectors, there is a nqte that the ranks assigned to many persons in that list, were tentative and that the orders o,f the High Court were awaited. Evidently the conimr of Labqur had in mind WPs. 252 and 225 of 1965 which were still pending when that seniority list was published. WPs. 225 and 252 of 1965 were disposed of on 22-6-1967 and 18-2-1968 respectively. Mr. Rama Jois submitted that the petitioners expected that the Govt. would revise the seniority list of Labour Inspectors after those, two writ petitions were disposed of that it was only when further promotions were made to the, cadre of Senior Labour Inspectors, from the cadre of Labour Inspectors, the petitioners realised that the Gqvt had failed tq revise the seniority list of Labqur inspectors and that thereafter the petitioners preferred these petitions. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances explained by Mr. Rama Jois, it cannot be said that there was any inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners in presenting these petitions. Hence, we over-rule the preliminary objection of learned Counsel for respondents. ( 11 ) MR. Rama Jois contended that the promotions of respondents 3 to 15 who were First Divn Clerks, to the posts of Labour Inspectors made prior to 6-3-1965, were contrary to the provisions of the, karnataka Labour service (Recruitment) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal rules) made by the Governor of Karnataka under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constn and hence were invalid and had no legal effect. He further contended that even if respondents 3 tq 15 could be promoted under the principal Rules as amended on 6-3-1965, such promotions could be, made only after 6-3-1965 and that hence, the petitioners whose appointments as labour Inspectors were regularised with effect from 22-8-1961 should be regarded as seniors to respondents 3 to 15 who could not be promoted as labour Inspectors prior to 6-3-1965 ( 12 ) THE learned Addl Govt Advocate contended that even if the promotions of respondents 3 to 15 to the cadre of Labour Inspectors, were not in accordance with the Principal Rules when they were made, they could be sustained on the basis of the amended Rules, i e , the Principal Rules as amended by the Notification dt 6-3-1965. ( 13 ) THE Principal Rules provided that 90 per cent of the posts of labour Inspectors should he filled by direct recruitment and 10 per cent, bv promotion from the cadre of Asst Labour Inspectors whq had put in minimum two years service and had passed the prescribed examinations. Under these Rules, Ministerial Officials including First Divn Clerks were not eligible far promotion to the cadre of Labour Inspectors. ( 14 ) THE Principal Rules were amended by the amendment published in the Notfn dt 6-3-1965. The amended Rules provide that 56 2/3 per cent of the posts of Labour Inspectors should be filled bv direct recruitment, 33 1/3 per cent, by promotion from the cadre of First Divn Clerks and 10% bv promotion from the cadre of Asst Labour Inspectors. The material portion in the Notfn dt. 6-3-1065 amending the Principal Rules reads"in the schedule to the said Rules (the Principal Rules) in the entries relating to Labour Inspectors for the entries in Column 2, the follownig shall be substituted. namely- (i) 56 2/3 per cent by direct recruitment; (ii) 33 1/3 percent by promotion from the cadre of I Divn Clerks; (iii) 10 per cent by promotion from the cadre of Asst Labour inspectors. " ( 15 ) THERE is nothing in the language of the above Notfn which indicates that the amendment is intended tq have retrospective operation. Hence, it has only prospective operation. " ( 15 ) THERE is nothing in the language of the above Notfn which indicates that the amendment is intended tq have retrospective operation. Hence, it has only prospective operation. If the impugned promotions were, not in accordance with the Principal Rules, as they stood, when the promotions were made, the mere fact that such promotions could be made under the amended Rules, would not, in our opinion, render those promotions valid as on the dates on which they were made. ( 16 ) HOWEVER, the learned Addl Govt Advocate contended that the amendment to the Principal Rules effected by the Notfn dt. 6-3-1965, should be regarded as having retrospective effect as the amendment ha,s substituted a new Schedule in place of the Original Schedule to the Principal Rules. ( 17 ) IN support of his contention, the learned Addl Govt Advocate relied on the following statement of law in Craves on Statute Law (7th edn at page 395 ;"where a statute is passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former statute, or, as Parke J (afterwards Baron Parke), said in R. v. Dursley, to 'explain' a former statute, the subsequent statute has relation back to the. time when the prior Act was passed. " ( 18 ) THE above statement of law has, in our opinion, no application to the present case because, there was no obvious omission in the Principal rules which needed to be supplied by the amendment. Nor can the amendment be regarded as being made to remove any doubt or ambiguity in the, principal Rules. The amendment was intended to bring about a change in the method of recruitment. In the absence of any indication in the amendment that such change was intended to have retrospective operation, the amendment should be regarded as being only prospective in operation. ( 19 ) THUS we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Addl govt Advocate that the promotions of respondents 3 tq 15 which were not in accordance with the Principal Rules when they were made, were validated by the amendment to the Principal Rules effected by the Notification dt. 6-3-1965. ( 20 ) BUT Mr. V. N. Sathyanarayana, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 5 to 8, contended that the Principal. 6-3-1965. ( 20 ) BUT Mr. V. N. Sathyanarayana, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 5 to 8, contended that the Principal. Rules, in so far as they did nqt proivide for promotion of Ministerial Officials to the cadre of Labour Inspectors were invalid as being violative of the protection of the service conditions given to allottees under proviso to sub-sec (7) of S. 115 of the States reorganisation Act, 1956, and hence the petitioners cannot claim any relief on the basis of the Principal Rules. Elaborating his contention, Mr. Sathyanarayana argued that according to the conditions of service prevailing in the former State of Mysore, First Divn Clerks in the Labour dept were eligible for promotion to the cadre of Labour Inspectors and 1/3 of the number of posts of Labour Inspectors hsd to be filled by promotion from the cadre of First Divn Clerks and that as the Principal Rules totally excluded First Divn Clerks from eligibility for promotion to the cadre of Labour Inspectors, they (the Principal Rules) altered the conditions of service of respondents 3 and 5 to 8 who were ajlottees to the new state of Mysore (Karnataka), to their prejudice and that the State Govt could not do so as it had not obtained the previous permission of the Central govt for so altering the conditions of service. ( 21 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Sathyanarayana, it is necessary to set out the. Rules and G. Os. regulating recruitment to thq cadre of Labour Inspectors, prevailing in the several integrating areas prior of to reorganisation of States. ( 22 ) THE Govt of the former State of Mysore, had, by its order dt. 30-9-1955, fixed the ratio between direct recruitment and promotions to nongazetted executive posts in the Labour Dept. According to, that order, 2/3 of such posts had to be filled by direct recruitment and 1/3 of such posts, by promotion of eligible officials working as First Divn Clerks in the ministerial cadre of that Department. ( 23 ) IN the former State of Hyderabad recruitment to subordinate services of the State Labour Dept, was regulated by the Rules made by the Rajapramukh of Hyderabad, under the Proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, issued by the Notfn dt. 15-9-1955. ( 23 ) IN the former State of Hyderabad recruitment to subordinate services of the State Labour Dept, was regulated by the Rules made by the Rajapramukh of Hyderabad, under the Proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, issued by the Notfn dt. 15-9-1955. Under those Rules, 50 per cent of the posts of Junior Inspectors, Shops and Establishments, had to be, filled by direct recruitment, and 50 per cent of those, posts, by promotion from among Asst Inspectors, and Second Grade Clerks of the Chief Inspectorate, who had put in not less than 5 years' service in the Labour Dept, selection being based on seniority-cum-efficiency. ( 24 ) IN the then State of Madras, recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Labour, was regulated by the rules made by the Governor of Madras in exercise of the, powers conferred by S. 241 of the Government of india Act. 1935. Rule 2 of those Rules provided, inter alia, that out of every two vacancies successively arising, the first shall be, filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment and the second shall be filled or reserved to be filled by recruitment or by transfer. ( 25 ) IN the rules made by the Chief Commr of Coorg for appointment, transfer and promotions in Class III and Class IV services under the administrative control of the Chief Commr (Published by Notfn dt. 20-7-1954), there was no specific provision as to the ratio between direct recruitment and promotions to Class III or Class IV posts ( 26 ) THUS, it is seen that in the former States of Mysore, Hyderabad and Madras, there were statutory rules or G. Os providing that certain percentage of the posts of Labour Inspectors should be filled by promotion and that Ministerial Officials like First Divn Clerks in the former State of Mysore, second grade clerks in the former State of Hyderabad and upper division clerks in the State of Madras, were also eligible for promotion to the cadre of Labour Inspectors. As stated earlier, under the Principal Rules made by the new State of Mysore (Kamataka) First Divn Clerks were totally ineligible for promotion to the cadre of Labour Inspectors. ( 27 ) ACCORDING to Mr. As stated earlier, under the Principal Rules made by the new State of Mysore (Kamataka) First Divn Clerks were totally ineligible for promotion to the cadre of Labour Inspectors. ( 27 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Sathyanarayana taking away the eligibility for promotion to the cadre of Labour Inspectors, which the First Divn clerks had in the former States of Mysore, Hyderabad and Madras, amounted to variation of conditions of service of such officials who were allotted to the new State of Mvsore (Karnataka) on re-organisation of States, to their prejudice ( 28 ) ON the other hand, Mr Rama Jois contended that the, provision in the G. O. dt. 30-9-1955 of the former State of Mysore and in the Rules made by the former State of Hyderabad and the then State of Madras for promotion of Clerks to the cadre of Labour Inspectors up tq certain proportions, cannot be regarded as constituting a condition of service, that mere alteration of the quota for promotion would amount tq no more than variation of the chances of promotion, which cannot be regarded as a condition of service and that such variation cannot be regarded as altering the conditions of service ( 29 ) IN support of his contentions, Mr Ramo Jois relied on the observation of this Court in V. B. Badami v State of Mysore, WP. 192 of 1972 and connected petitions. There, the petitioners who were allottees from the former State of Hyderabad, challenged the Mysore Adminitrative Services (Recruitment) rules, 1957, as being violative of the protection of the conditions of service, given by proviso to sub-sec (7) of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation act because according tq the, rules for recruitment to the cadre of Asst commrs in the former State of Hyderabad, all the posts of Deputy Collectors had to be-filled by promotion only, whereas the Mysore Administrative services (Recruitment) Rules, 1957, provided for certain per centage of posts in the cadre of Asst Commrs being filled by direct recruitment. Repelling that contention, this is what Narayana Pai, CJ, who spoke for the Bench said :"but the, question is whether the provision of a, quota fqr direct recruitment in a, higher cadre which could also be filled by promotion from a, Iqwer cadre can by itself be regarded as a, matter which varies to an allottee's prejudice a condition of his service. It may be, conceded that if promotion in the parent State to a particular cadre is subject, to certain conditions, the imposing of more onerous conditions by the new State may be such a, variation requiring previous approval of the Central Govt. . But no person has a right to say that the proportion between the strength of promotional cadre and the strength, of cadre from which promotions are made should always be maintained without any variation. It is certainly open to Govt either to increase or reduce the strength of cadres classify or reclassify its services. Hence, with reference to the relative strength of the promotional cadre and the cadres from which promotions are made thereto, what a, Govt servant has is only what may rightly be described as a chance of promotion. That a mere chance of promotion is not a, condition of service is the clear decision qf the, Supreme Court in the cose of Purohit in CA. 2281 (N) of 1966 decided on 25th Jan. 1969 (1967 Ser. L. R. 753 ). Furher as already stated, the situation is in essencq the chances of promotion and certainly not the variation qf condition of service. " ( 30 ) MR. Rama Jois also relied on the decision of the, Supreme, Court in Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR. 1974 SC. 259. After reorganisation of States the Govt of Bombay made rules an 30-7-1959 for recruitment to the, posts of Deputy Collectors. According tq those rules, 50 per cent of posts of Deputy Collectors had tq be filled by nomination (direct recruitment) and the remaining 50 per cent by promotion. The validity of these Rules was challenged by officials who had been allotted from the former State of Hyderabad to the State'of Bombay. They contended that in the former State of Hyderabad, all the posts of Deputy Collectors had tq be filled by promotion, that there was no direct recruitment to the cadre of Deputy Collectors and that the new rules affected their conditions of service, to their prejudice. They contended that in the former State of Hyderabad, all the posts of Deputy Collectors had tq be filled by promotion, that there was no direct recruitment to the cadre of Deputy Collectors and that the new rules affected their conditions of service, to their prejudice. Repelling that contention, this is what bhagwati, J, who spoke for the Court, said at page 267"all that happened as a, result of making promotions to the posit of deputy Collectors division-wise, and limiting such promotions to 5% of the total number of vacancies in the posts of Deputy Collector was to reduce the chances of promotion available to the petitioners. It is now well settled by the decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. G. B. Purohit (1967 Ser. L. R. 753) that though a right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, mere chances of promotion are not. A rule which merely affects chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition of service. " ( 31 ) THE above two decisions relied on by Mr. Rama Jois, are distinguishable on facts. Both the Mysore Administrative Services (Recruitment) rules, 1957, and the rules framed by the State of Bombay for recruitment to the posts of Deputy Collectors, merely brought about alterations of the proportions of the posts of Asst Commrs and Deputy Collectors respectively, available for promotion from the respective lower cadres. Neither of these two rules totally eliminated the chances of promotion to, the cadre of Asst Commrs and to the cadre of Deputy Collectors, respectively. Under the Mysore Administrative Sendees (Recruitment) Rules, 1957, mamlatdars or Tahsildars vere still eligible for promotion to the cadre of asst Commrs to the extent of 50 per cent of the posts in that cadre. Likewise, under the rules made by the State of Bombay on 30-7-1959 fof recruitment tq the cadre of Deputy Collectqrs, the proportion of the posts available for promotion, was reduced to 50 per cent; and there was no total elimination of Mamlatdars from promotion to the cadre of Dy. Collectors. ( 32 ) BUT, under the Principal Rules i. e. , the Mysore Labour Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1959, First Divn Clerks were totally excluded from promotion tq the cadre of Labqur Inspectors. Collectors. ( 32 ) BUT, under the Principal Rules i. e. , the Mysore Labour Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1959, First Divn Clerks were totally excluded from promotion tq the cadre of Labqur Inspectors. Thus, there was nqt merely a variation of the proportion of the posts of Labour Inspectors to which first Divn Clerks could be promoted, but total removal of eligibility for promotion to the cadre of Labour Inspectors. In qther words, the alteration brought about by the Principal Rules, was not merely to reduce the chances of promotion of First Divn Clerks to the cadre of Labour Inspectors, but total removal of eligibility of First Divn Clerks for promotion to the cadre of Labour Inspectors. ( 33 ) EVEN according to the above quoted observations of Bhagwati, j. , in Ramachandra Deodhar's case, a, right to be considered for promotion is a, condition of service, while a mere chance, of promotion is not a condition qf service. As the Principal Rules made, First Divn Clerks totally ineligible for promotion to the cadre of Labour Inspectors, the right conferred on them by the G. O. dt. 30-9-1955 of the former State of Mysore, by the Rules made by the Rajapramukh of Hyderabad and by the Rules made by the Governor of Madras, to be considered for promotion tq the cadre of Labour Inspectors, was taken away by the Principal Rules. Since a right to be considered for promotion is held to be a condition of service, taking away such right, must be regarded as altering conditions of service to the disadvantage of the concerned officials. ( 34 ) IT is undisputed that before making the Principal Rules, the State govt had not obtained the previous approval of the Central Govt as contemplated by the proviso tq sub-sec (7) of S. 115 of the States Reorganisation act, 1956. Hence, the Principal Rules must be held tq be unenforceable in regard to respondents 3 to 8 and 10 to 12 who were allotted to the new State of Mysore (Karnataka) from the former States of Mysore, hyderabad and the then State of Madras, in so far as those, rules related to promotion to the posts qf Labour Inspectors. ( 35 ) THE above defect in the Principal Rules, was rectified by the amendment thereof published in the Notfn dt. 6-3-1965. ( 35 ) THE above defect in the Principal Rules, was rectified by the amendment thereof published in the Notfn dt. 6-3-1965. As stated earlier the Principal Rules, so amended, provide for 33 1/3 per cent of the posts of Labour Inspectors being filled by promotion from the cadre of First divn Clerks. But we have held that such amendment has no retrospective operation and that the promotions of respondents 3 to 15 have not been validated by such amendment. At the same time the prayer of the petitioners that the ranks assigned to respondents 3 to 15 in the seniority list of Labour Inspectors, should be quashed on the ground that they (respondents 3 to 15) were not eligible for promqtion when they were promoted cannot be granted, as the Principal Rules violated the protection afforded to respondents 3 to 8 and 10 to 12 under the proviso to, Sec. 115 (7) of the states Reorganisation Act. ( 36 ) IN the circumstances the proper order to make is to direct the state Govt (respondent 2) to adjust the rights of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 15 and to determine their relative ranks in the cadre of Labour inspectors so as not to violate the protection of conditions of service under the, proviso to Sec. 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act We order accordingly. ( 37 ) IN the circumstances of these petitions, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in these petitions. --- *** --- .