CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. ( 1 ) THESE petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution nave been referred to a Division Bench. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were Process Servers; in the Subordinate Cpurts in Karnataka State. They had passed the VII Standard examination. They had been promoted as Bailiffs though there were juniors to several Process servers who had not passed the VII standard examination. Subsequently their promotions were reviewed and they were reverted as Process Servers and Process Servers who were seniors to the petitioners, but had npt passed the VII standard examination, were promoted in their places. ( 3 ) IN these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the karnataka Subordinate Courts (Ministerial Posts and other Posts) (Recruitment) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter called the Amendment rules ). Alternatively the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the Amendment Rules have no application to them. They have also prayed for issue of a mandamus directing the authorities to continue them as Bailiffs and not to revert them as Process Servers. ( 4 ) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions of learned Counsel, it is useful to set out the relevant rules governing the promotion to the cadre of Bailiffs. The Karnataka Subordinate Courts (Ministerial and other posts) (Recruitment) Rules, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provide for the method of recruitment and minimum qualifications for several categories of pasts set out in the Table in the Rules. In that Table the item relating to Bailiffs, as it stood before they were amended by the cadre of Bailiff from the cadre of Process Server, the minimum qualification was passing the VII standard examination. ( 5 ) THE Amendment Rules came into force on the data of their publication in the official gazette on 21-7-1976. Rule 2 of the Amendment Rule? reads as follows:-"amendment of Rule 2: In the table below Rule 2 of the Karnataka subordinate Courts (Ministerial and other Posts (Recruitment) Rules 1d71, iu the entries relating to the category of posfc of Bailiffs, entry in column 3 shall be. and shall be deemed always to have been omitted and in the said column, the following entry shall be inserted with effect from the First day of January 1977, namely.- 'must have passed VII Standard'. and shall be deemed always to have been omitted and in the said column, the following entry shall be inserted with effect from the First day of January 1977, namely.- 'must have passed VII Standard'. " ( 6 ) THE effect of such amendment was that the minimum qualification of passing the VII standard examination, was not required prior to 1-7-1977 and was required for such promotion only on and after 1-1-77. It follows that that educational qualification was not relevant for promotion to the cadre of Bailiffs prior to 1-1-1977. To give effect to such amendment of the Rules, promotions which had been made prior to the Amendment Rules coming into force, were reviewed and the petitioneis who, though juniors to several, process Servers, but had been promoted on the basis of their possessing such educational qualification, were reverted to make room for Process Servers who were seniors to the petitioners, and had not been promoted on the ground of their not possessing such minimum qualification. ( 7 ) SRI S. G. Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that as the promotions of the petitioners were entirely in accordance with the rules, as they stood at the time when such promotions were made, such promotions could not be disturbed merely because the Rules were subsequently amended with retrospective effect. It was also contended by sri Bhat that the Amendment Rules could only be applied prospectively to promotions to be made subsequent to such amendment. ( 8 ) WHEN the Amendment Rule,s expressly provide that such amendment shall have retrospective effect, and that such educational qualification shall be deemed always to have been omitted, it would not be correct to construe such amendment as being only prospective and applicable only to promotions to be made subsequent to such amendment. ( 9 ) IT was next contended by Sri Bhat that by amending the Rules, promotions which were made validly could not be rendered invalid He sought to derive support from the following observations of the Supreme court in State of Myore vs. Padmanabacharya (AIR 1966 SC 662. ). "under the proviso (to Art. 309 of the Constitution) the Govern" can make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. ). "under the proviso (to Art. 309 of the Constitution) the Govern" can make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. But all that this notification or rule does is to say that certain persons who had been wrongly retired must be treated to have been rightly retired. This power of validating an order which was invalid when it was made does not in our opinion flow from the power conferred on the Governor to make rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to services and posts in cop nection with the affairs of the State. It is certainly not a rule regulating recruitment of such persons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . But what this notification or rule does is to select certain Governrment servants who had been illegally required to retire and to say that even if the retirement had beer illegal, that retirement should be deemed to have been properly and, lawfully made. We are of opinion that such a declaration made by the Governor-and that is all that the notification or the rule does-canno,t in any sense be regarded; as a rule made under the proviso to Art. 309 governing the conditions of service of persons appointed to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. . . . . . " ( 10 ) THE aforepaid observations of the Supreme Court have no application to the present case. In Padmanabhacharya's case the impugned rule merely purported to validate certain invalid actions without removing the catise for such invalidity. Hence, the Supreme Court held that such purported validation was of no lega,l effect. In the present case the rule on the basis of which the petitioners had been promoted in preference to their seniors, was amended with retrospective effect and the basis for preferring the petitioners to their seniors, fdr promotion to the cadre, of Bailiffs, was removed with retrosepective effect. In other words, such basis is deemed never to have existed. The, result was that though the promotions of the petitioners were in accordance with the rules, as they stood! when such promotions were made, subsequent amendment of Rules with retrospective effect, rendered such promotions contrary to the Rules. In other words, such basis is deemed never to have existed. The, result was that though the promotions of the petitioners were in accordance with the rules, as they stood! when such promotions were made, subsequent amendment of Rules with retrospective effect, rendered such promotions contrary to the Rules. Hence the authorities were justified in reviewing those promotions and reverting the petitioners to make room fo,r Process Servers who were undoubtedly seniors to them. ( 11 ) IT is well settled that the rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, are legislative in character and can be given retrospective effect. However, it was contended by Shri Bhat that the conditions of service of the petitioners could not be altered to their disadvantage by retrospective amendment of Rules as pointed out by the Supreme Court in n. C. Singhal vs. Director General of Armed Forces (2 ). ( 12 ) THE conditions of service of Process Servers or Bailiffs cannot be said to be altered to their disadvantage by dispensing with the requirement of the minimum educational qualification as a condition of 'eligibility for promotion. Hence the retrospective amendment of Rules deleting the minimum educational qualification, did not suffer from any infirmity. ( 13 ) ALL the contentions urged by Shri Bhat fail. In the result, we dismiss these petitions. ( 14 ) IN the circumtances of the petitions, we make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .