CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are from the same order of Jagannatha Shetty, J. , in WP. 719 of 1972. WA. 75 of 1974 is presented by the State of Karnataka which was respondent 1 in the writ petition, while WA. 76 of 1974 was presented by respondent 2 in the writ petition. For the bake of convenience, the parties will be referred to with reference to their positions in the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE material facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was a Head clerk in the Dept of Priming and Stationery. By the order dt. 29-4-1. 967, he was promoted to the post of Supervisor, in the grade of Rs. 180-10-320. Respondent 2 was also a Head Clerk in the Dept of Printing and Stationery. He was promoted to the post of. Chief Cost Accountant in the grade Rs. 180- 10-320 by the order dt. 28-2-1968. The Govt, by its order dt. 28-10-1970, sanctioned, inter alia, upgrading the post of Chief Cost Accountant to that of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) which is a Class II post. Para 4 of that Government Order reads :" These posts are created for a period of one year on trial basis subject to review and that the lower posts should be kept vacant. The post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) 'should be filled up by promotion from the Cadre of Chief Cost Accountants only on the basis of practical experience in printers' costing and the posts of Head Computers by promotion of I Dn Computers in grade of Rs. 130-5-150-8-190 eb-10-250. For the purpose of promotion, the Director is requested to propose suitable amendment to. the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Dept of Printing, Stationery and Publications, Bangalore. Pending amendments to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, the Director is requested to make suitable in charge arrangements in the posts created in para 3 above in the exigency of work during the trial period of one year and subject to review. " ( 3 ) BY two subsequent Govt Orders, the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) was continued till 28-10-1973. In pursuance to the Govt oder dt. " ( 3 ) BY two subsequent Govt Orders, the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) was continued till 28-10-1973. In pursuance to the Govt oder dt. 28-11-1970, the Director of Printing and Stationery placed respondent 2 in independent charge of the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) and permitted him to draw the charge allowance as per the rules, 'j he govt, by its order dt. 17-2-1972 (produced as Ext. H in writ petition), promoted respondent 2 to the post of Asst Directer (Printers' Costing) in the Dept of Printing, Stationery and Publications, with effect from 30-11-'70, the date on which he assumed independent charge of that post. ( 4 ) THE promotion of respondent 2 as Asst Director by the order of the Govt d. 17-2-1972, was assailed by the petitioner in WP. 719 of 1972. The learned single Judge, by his order d|. 12-12-1973, allowed that petition and directed the State of Karnataka to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing), after considering the ease of his seniors if any, with effect from 30-11-1970 or any other date subsequent to it. ( 5 ) WA. 75 of 1974 was presented on 25-1-1974 and WA. 76 of 1974 was presented on 18-1-1974. During the pendency of these appeals, the Governor of Karnataka amended the Kiarnataka General Services (Printing, Stationery and Publications Branch) Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the Cadre and Recruitment Rules) with retrospective effect. The amendments were published in two Notifications of the govt dt. 4-10-74. By the first of these Notifieations, in the Cadre and Recruitment rules, under the heading Class II posts, after the entries relating to the category of posts of Asst Director (non-technical), the category of posts asst Director (Printers' Costing) shall be and shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from 28th October 1970. ( 6 ) BY the second of the aforesaid two Notifications, the Recruitment rules were amended as follows :" Amendment of Schedule: In the Schedule to the Karnataka general Services (Printing, Stationery and Publications Branch) recruitment Rules, 1960, after the entries relating to the category of posts of Asst Directors (non-technical ). ( 6 ) BY the second of the aforesaid two Notifications, the Recruitment rules were amended as follows :" Amendment of Schedule: In the Schedule to the Karnataka general Services (Printing, Stationery and Publications Branch) recruitment Rules, 1960, after the entries relating to the category of posts of Asst Directors (non-technical ). the following category of posts and entries shall be and shall be deemed to have been inserted With effect from 28th October, 1970, namely:" Assistant Director By promotion from Must have practical (printers' Costing) the Cadre of Chief experience in Printres: cost Accountants Costing. "" ( 7 ) THE reasoning of the learned single Judge for allowing the writ petition, is briefly as follows: The petitioner, who had been promoted as manager on 17-5-1967, was senior to respondent 2 who had been promoted to an equivalent cadre namely, Chief Cost Accountant, on 1-3-1968. The petitioner was eligible for being promoted to the post of Asst Director (Non-Technical ). Even though the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) was an ex-cadre post, it could not be filled arbitrarily. Rule 14 of the Karnataka state Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the General Recruitment Rules') provides that in the case of any temporary post not included in the cadre of any state Civil Service or to, which the rules of recruitment specifically made in respect of any service are not applicable, the method of recruitment and the qualifications for recruitment to such temporary post, shall be the same as are applicable to the corresponding permanent posts included in any such cadre or in respect of which the said rules of recruitment are applicable. Therefore, the promotion to the post of Asst Director (printers' Costing) shquld have been done according to the method of recruitment provided in the Recruitment Rules for the corresponding permanent post, namely, Asst Director (Non-Technical ). As promotion to the post of Asst Director (Non-Technical) should be from among Managers and Chief Cost Accountants, the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) could not be said to be anything other than the Asst Director (Non-Technical ). In the absence of proper amendment to the Recruitment Rules of the Dept, the authorities could not promote respondent 2 on the ground that he was a Chief Copt Accountant. In the absence of proper amendment to the Recruitment Rules of the Dept, the authorities could not promote respondent 2 on the ground that he was a Chief Copt Accountant. His promotion could not be sustained on the basis of the directions of the Govt which are contrary to the Recruitment rules. In the absence of the amendment to the Recruitment Rules, respondent 2 who was junior to the petitioner in the combined cadre of managers and Chief Cost Accountants, had no special right to. have his case considered for promotion to the exclusion of the petitioner. ( 8 ) AS stated earlier, during the pendency of these appeals the Governor has amended the Cadre and Recruitment Rules with retrospective effect from 28-10-1970. In Raj Kumar v. Union of India (AIR. 1975 SC. 1116), the Supreme court held that the rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constn are legislative in character and therefore can be given effect to retrospectively. The Supreme Court further held that once an amendment, to law is given retrospective effect as from a particular date, all actions taken under that law even before the amendment was made would be deemed to have been taken under the law as amended and there could be really no question of having to validate any action already taken, provided it is subsequent to the date from which the amendment is given retrospective effect. ( 9 ) IN Raj Kumar's case (AIR. 1975 SC. 1116), the Supreme Court held that the action taken against the appellant therein which was on a date subsequent to the date on which the amended rule took effect, was therefore an action done in accordance with the amended rule and was legally a valid action. ( 10 ) IN the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supremo Court, the amendment of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules by which the post of Asst director (Printers' Costing) was created with effect from 28-10-1970 and the rules for recruitment to that post were made with retrospective effect should be held to be valid. The order of the Govt d|. 28-10-1970 creating the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) should also be held to be valid. The order of the Govt dj. The order of the Govt d|. 28-10-1970 creating the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) should also be held to be valid. The order of the Govt dj. 17-12-1972 promoting respondent 2 to officiate as Asst Director (Printers' Costing) in the Dept of Printing, Stationery and Publications with effect from 30-11-1970 (the date on which he assumed independent charge of that post), should also be held to be a valid order as such promotion took effect subsequent to 28-10-1970 from which date the amendments to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules are given retrospective effect. ( 11 ) THE effect of retrospective amendment of law during the pendency of an appeal, was considered by the Federal Court in Lachmeshwar Prasad shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri (AIR 1941 FC 5 ). During the pendencv of an appeal before the Federal Court, the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1938, was amended with retrospective effect by the amending Act of 1939. Varadachariar, j. , in his judgment observed thus at pages 12 and 13 as follows :. " 'the respondents' argument was founded on the theory that when hearing an appeal this Court was only concerned to see whether or not the judgment of the High Court was in conformity with the lav as it stood at the time that that judgment was given; and it was contended that as the Act of 1939 had not been enacted at the time wher the High Court decided the present case, this Court was not competent to give relief to the appellants in terms of S. 7 of the new Act. . . . Once the decree of the High Court had been appealed against, the matter became sub judice again and thereafter this Court had seisin of the whole case, though for certain purposes, e. g. , execution, the decree was regarded as final and the Courts below retained jurisdiction. . . . . . . . " It is also on the theory of an appeal being in the nature of a rehearing that the Courts in this country have in numerous cases recognized that in moulding the relief to be granted in a case on appeal, the Court of appeal is entitled to taken into account even facts and events which have come into existence after the decree appealed against. . . . . . . . . . . . . "the Federal Court gave effect to the amendment of Bihar Money-Lenders act, 1938, by the amending Act of 1939 which was passed during the pendency of the Appeal before that Court. ( 12 ) THE above decision of the Federal Court was approved by the supreme Court in Kotturaswami v. Veeravva (AIR. 1959 SC. 577 ). The Supreme Court observed at page 579 :" It is well settled that an appellate Court is entitled to take into eonsideraion any change in the law during the pendency of the appeal. " ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid rulings of the Federal Court and the supreme Court, it is clear that we have to take note of the amendment to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules by the Notifications dt. 4-10-1974. ( 14 ) THE learned single Judge proceeded on the assumption that the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) was a temporary post corresponding to the post of Asst Director (Non-Technical), that since the petitioner was eligible to be promoted to the post of Asst Director (Non-Technical), he was also eligible to be promoted to the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) and that under Rule 14 of the General Recruitment rules the promotion to the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) had to be made according to. the rules applicable to promotion to, the post of asst Director (Non-Technical) in the absence of any separate rules for recruitment to the former post. ( 15 ) THE order of Govt dt. 28-10-1970 creating the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) specifically provided that that post should be filled by promotion from the Cadre of Chief Cost Accountants only on the basis of practical experience in Printers' Costing. Hence, even according to the terms of the Govt Order creating that post, the petitioner who was not a chief Cost Accountant, was not. eligble for being promoted to that post. This legal position has been put beyond doubt by the amendment to the cadre and Recruitment Rules with retrospective effect from 28-10-1970. The amended rules make it clear that the post of Asst Directoe (Printers' costing) is distinct and separate from the post of Asst Director (Non-Technical), and that the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) should be filled by promotion only from the Cadre of Chief Cost Accountants having practical experience in Printers' Costing. The amended rules make it clear that the post of Asst Directoe (Printers' costing) is distinct and separate from the post of Asst Director (Non-Technical), and that the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) should be filled by promotion only from the Cadre of Chief Cost Accountants having practical experience in Printers' Costing. In the light of the amended rules, the petitioner who did not hold the post of Chief Cost Accountant, nor had any practical experience in Printers' Costing, was not eligible for being promoted to the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing ). As the amended cadre and Recruitment Rules make specific provision with retrospective effect as to the manner in which the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) should be filled, Rule 14 of the General Recruitment Rules could have no application to promoton to the post. ( 16 ) THE view taken by the learned single Judge that non-consideration of the case of the petitioner who was senior to, respondent 2 in the combined cadre of Managers and Cost Accountants, while promoting to the post of Asst Director (Printers' Costing) vitiated the promotion to that post, cannot be sustained especially in view of the amendment of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules with retrospective effect. ( 17 ) IN the result, we allow these two appeals, reverse the decision of the learned single Judge and dismiss writ petition 719 of 1972. ( 18 ) IN the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in these appeals. --- *** --- .