JUDGMENT 1. - The learned single Judge of this Court has referred this writ petition to the Division Bench as according to him two questions arise for decision : (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the impugned order of reversion in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the said order was passed in violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution, and (2) Whether the decision in Avinash Swarup v. State, 1974 Raj LW 584 lays down the correct law in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 1116 : 1975 Lab IC 669 . 2. The petitioner Guman Singh filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order Annexure 12 dated October 9. 1975 passed by the State Government by which the petitioner who was working as Assistant District Supply Officer in the Food and Civil Supplies Department ("Supplies Department" herein) was sent back to the post of Stenographer in the Office of the Director. Technical Education, Jodhpur and respondents Nos. 3 to 17 were absorbed as Assistant District Supply Officers in the Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service. 3. The material facts are these: The petitioner was appointed as a lower division clerk in the Education Department in 1957. He was promoted as an upper division clerk in 1959. He was appointed as Stenographer in the office of the Director Technical Education, Rajasthan Jaipur. He was confirmed on the said post with effect from August 19, 1960 by order Annexure 1 dated October 24, 1963. On July 25, 1964 the Government invited applications for the appointment to fifty posts of Enforcement Officers and fifty posts of Enforcement Inspectors in the office of the Supplies Department. He submitted an application for appointment on the post of Enforcement Officer. By order Annexure 2 dated November 26, 1964, he was appointed as Enforcement Officer on probation for six months. By order dated June 11, 1968 he was promoted as Area Supply Officer. He submitted an application for appointment on the post of Enforcement Officer. By order Annexure 2 dated November 26, 1964, he was appointed as Enforcement Officer on probation for six months. By order dated June 11, 1968 he was promoted as Area Supply Officer. It appears that by order Annexure 6 he was promoted on the post of Assistant District Supply Officer The Government required the petitioner to exercise his option as to whether he would like to remain in the Civil Supplies Office and the petitioner by his letter Annexure 7 dated October 17, 1970 opted being absorbed on the post on permanent basis in the Civil Supplies Department. In Harinarain Sainik v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 683 of 1967, decided on September 14, 1970 , it was held that the appointment made on the post of Enforcement Officer in the Supplies Department in pursuance of the order dated July 25, 1964 had not been made in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 and were thus invalid. After the decision in Harinarain Sainik's case (supra) the Government of Rajasthan framed the Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service (Initial Constitution and Emergency Recruitment) Rules 1973, which will hereinafter be referred to as "the 1973 Rules" to provide for the initial constitution and the emergency recruitment to the posts in the Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service. These Rules were published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated June 7, 1973. The posts of Enforcement Officer. Area Supply Officer and Assistant District Supply Officer were included in the Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service which was sought to be constituted under the 1973 Rules. Rule 5 is as under:- "5. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Recruitment and other Conditions) Rules, 1960. the first recruitment to the Service shall be made in each category of posts out of all persons who have on the date of commencement of these Rules been continuously holding the Post of Enforcement Inspectors. Enforcement Officers, Quality Inspectors, Area Supply Officers, Assistant District Supply Officers in ad hoc officiating or temporary capacity for a period of 6 months before 1-1-1973 and who are adjudged suitable for such posts after screening by a Committee consisting of the following:- 1. Food Commissioner. 2. Enforcement Officers, Quality Inspectors, Area Supply Officers, Assistant District Supply Officers in ad hoc officiating or temporary capacity for a period of 6 months before 1-1-1973 and who are adjudged suitable for such posts after screening by a Committee consisting of the following:- 1. Food Commissioner. 2. Special Secretary to Govt , Department of Personnel or his representative not below the rank of a Dy. Secretary to Govt. 3. Addl, Food Commissioner. Provided that- (i) such persons possess the qualifications prescribed on the basis of which the persons were selected for ad hoc/officiating/temporary appointment; (ii) persons who have been holding such posts continuously before 1-1-1957 need not possess such qualifications. (iii) that except for the post on which a person was initially appointed in the Food & Civil Supplies Department, he shall not be entitled for screening on such higher post on which he may have been appointed in ad hoc or officiating capacity if his screening on the higher post involves supersession of any senior person without any default on the part of latter. Seniority for this purpose will be reckoned according to date of continuous officiating appointment to the post." The 1973 Rules remained in force up to December 31, 1973. These Rules lapsed thereafter. Before December 31, 1973 no order appointing any person to the service was made. By notification dated December 21, 1974. publisher in the Rajasthan Gazette dated February 20, 1975 the Government promulgated the Rajasthan Food and Civil Supply Subordinate Service Rules. 1974 (for short "the Rules of 1974"), in order to make provision for regulating the recruitment to the posts in and the conditions of service of persons appointed to Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service. The 1974 Rules did not contain any provision with regard to the initial constitution of the service and only provided for future recruitment to the Service by direct recruitment i. e. by appointment. Rule 37 of the Rules of 1974 is as follows:- "37. The 1974 Rules did not contain any provision with regard to the initial constitution of the service and only provided for future recruitment to the Service by direct recruitment i. e. by appointment. Rule 37 of the Rules of 1974 is as follows:- "37. Repeal and Saving- All rules and orders in relation to matters covered by these rules and in force immediately before the commencement of these rules are hereby repealed: Provided that any action taken under the rules and orders so superseded shall be deemed to have been taken under the provisions of these rules: Provided further that any action taken to complete the first recruitment under Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service (Initial Constitution and Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1973 shall be deemed to have taken under these rules." This rule provided that any action taken to complete the first recruitment under Rule 5 of the 1973 Rules, shall be deemed to have been taken under the provisions of the 1974 Rules. Thereafter the order Annexure 12 dated October 9, 1975 was passed by which the petitioner and three other officers who were working as Assistant District Supply Officer in the Food and Civil Supplies Department were sent back to the parent department with immediate effect on the ground that they had not been adjudged suitable by the Screening Committee constituted under the 1973 Rules. On the same day i. e. on October 9, 1975 another order Annexure 13 was passed by which 17 persons including respondents Nos. 3 to 17 were adjudged suitable for the post of Assistant District Supply Officer by the Screening Committee and were appointed as Assistant District Supply Officers under Rule 6 of 1973 Rules and Rule 5 (b) of the 1974 Rules. The petitioner filed the writ petition for quashing, inter alia, the orders Annexure 12 and Annexure 13 by which he was ordered to be reverted to his parent department and respondents Nos. 3 to 13 were appointed under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 to the posts of the Assistant District Supply Officer. The petitioner filed the writ petition for quashing, inter alia, the orders Annexure 12 and Annexure 13 by which he was ordered to be reverted to his parent department and respondents Nos. 3 to 13 were appointed under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1973 to the posts of the Assistant District Supply Officer. In the original writ petition the orders Annexure 12 and Annexure 13 were challenged inter alia on the ground that the 1973 Rules had expired on December 31, 1973 and so no action could be taken it pursuance of them after the expiry of the 1973 Rules and so the aforesaid orders were illegal and void. 4. A show cause notice was ordered to be issued on March 12. 1976 to the State of Rajasthan. Thereafter the Government by notification dated March 25. 1976 published in the Rajasthan Gazettg dated March 25. 197J3 framed the Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 1976. They will for the sake of brevity be referred to as "the 1976 Rules" whereby the 1974 Rules were amended with retrospective effect from February 20, 1975. the date on which the 1974 Rules came into force. Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules is as under:- "Amendment of Rule 6.- After the existing proviso (b) to Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service Rules, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the said Rules, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- "(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and other Conditions) Rules, 1960, the first recruitment to the Service shall be made in each category of posts out of all persons who have on 7th June, 1973 been continuously holding the post of Enforcement Inspectors, Enforcement Officers, Quality Inspectors. Area Supply Officers. Assistant District Supply Officers in ad hoc, officiating or temporary capacity for a period of 6 months before 1-1-1973 and who are adjudged suitable for such posts after screening by a committee consisting of the following:- 1. Food Commissioner. 2. Special Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel or his representative not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary to the Government. 3. Food Commissioner. 2. Special Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel or his representative not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary to the Government. 3. Additional Food Commissioner: Provided that- (i) Such persons possess the qualifications prescribed on the basis of which the persons were selected for ad hoc/officiating/temporary appointment; (ii) Persons who have been holding such posts continuously before 1-1-1957 need not possess such qualifications; (iii) That except for the post on which a person was initially appointed in the Food and Civil Supplies Department he shall not be entitled for screening on such higher post on which he may have been appointed in ad hoc or officiating capacity if his screening on the higher post involved supersession of any senior persons without any default on the part of latter. Seniority for this purpose will be reckoned according to date of continuous officiating appointment to the post." It provides for the first recruitment to the service after screening by the committee amongst persons who on January 1, 1973 had been continuously holding the post of Enforcement Officer qua Enforcement Inspector or Area Supply Officer. Assistant District Supply Officer in ad hoc, officiating or temporary capacity for a period of six months from January 1973. The composition of screening committee was the same as was laid down in Rule 5 of the 1973 Rules. Rule 37 of 1974 Rules was also amended by the 1976 Rules, to provide that notwithstanding the 1973 Rules, the committee constituted under Rule 5 of the 1973 Rules shall continue to adjudge the suitability of the candidates for the recruitment to the service. It was further provided that all actions and proceedings taken by the committee shall be deemed to have been taken under the 1974 Rules. According to it, orders passed by the appointing authority on the basis of the recommendation of the Screening Committee, appointing persons and fixing their seniority shall be deemed to have been issued under the 1974 Rules and that persons who were not adjudged suitable by the said committee on any of the post in the service should be reverted to their parent department from October 1975. After the promulgation of the 1976 Rules, the petitioner was allowed to amend the writ petition to challenge the validity of the 1976 Rules. 5. After the promulgation of the 1976 Rules, the petitioner was allowed to amend the writ petition to challenge the validity of the 1976 Rules. 5. It was contended before the learned single Judge that the orders Annexure 12 and Annexure 13 are illegal and void inasmuch as the screening Committee which was constituted under the 1973 Rules ceased to be in existence after the 1973 Rules have expired on December 31, 1973 and that the 1976 Rules which seek to validate the invalid orders dated Oct. 9, 1975 are unconstitutional an a void inasmuch as Article 309 of the Constitution does not empower the Government to frame a rule for the purpose of validating in illegal order and that the 1976 Rules were only framed for the purpose of validating the orders of 1975 which were illegal and void. On the basis of Harinarain Sainik's case (supra) it was urged that the initial appointment of the petitioner was illegal and invalid and, therefore, the petitioner has no legal right whatsoever to challenge the validity of the order Annexure 12 dated Oct 9, 1975. 6. In Roshanlal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Writ Petn No. 1967 of 1975, decided on July 17, 1974 , the petitioner, who was appointed temporarily as an Area Supply Officer was reverted to the parent department i. e. Office of the Collectorate Ajmer, challenged the order of reversion. One of the contentions raised in that case was whether the petitioner had a right to hold post in the Supplies Department. The learned Judge while repelling the aforesaid contentions, held that the position of the petitioner Roshanlal was that he was temporarily on deputation in the Supplies Department and, therefore, had no legal right to hold the post. It may be stated here that against the order dated July 17, 1974, passed in Roshanlal's case (supra) Special Appeal was filed. The Division Bench to which one of us (S. K. Mal Lodha. J.) was a party vide Roshanlal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Special Appeal No. 39 of 1974, decided on April 19, 1974 agreed with the learned single Judge that the appellant Roshanlal was temporarily on deputation in the Supplies Department and when he was temporarily on deputation, no authority is needed to say that he had no legal right to hold the post. In this case, a contention was raised before the learned single Judge who has made this reference that reversion of the petitioner by the order Annexure 12 was not on account of the administrative exigencies of the service but for the reason that he had not been adjudged suitable for the appointment to the Post of Assistant District Supply Officer by the Screening Committee constituted under Rule 5 of the 1973 Rules. It was also submitted that when the said committee had no legal status after December 31, 1973, it was not competent to make any recommendation after December 31, 1973 on the basis of which the petitioner could be reverted and appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 17 could be made. The point that was canvassed was that the amendments introduced in the 1974 Rules by the 1976 Rules were unconstitutional and void inasmuch as the power which was conferred on the Government under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution could not be invoked for the purpose of validating an invalid order and that the intended purpose of 1976 Rules was lo validate the impugned orders Annexure 12 and Annexure 13. Reliance was placed in support of this submission on State of Mysore v. Padmanabhacharya, AIR 1966 SC 602 , State of Punjab v. G.N.P. & O. Mills, AIR 1972 SC 1760 . I.N. Saksena v. State of M.P., AIR 1976 SC 2250 : 1976 Lab IC 1446 and Avinash Swaroop's case (1974 Raj LW 584). The same contentions have been reiterated before us and the question that, therefore, arises is whether after the amendment in the 1974 Rules by the 1976 Rules, the impugned orders Annexure 12 and Annexure 13 are still bad and illegal. 7. In Avinash Swaroop's case while considering Article 309 the learned Judge observed as follows:- "In other words by merely making rules under Article 309 of the Constitution with retrospective effect, appointments which were a nullity at the time they purported to be made cannot be made valid. The right course for the Government in such a situation was to have passed a fresh order of appointment the rules stood amended with retrospective effect. This has never been done in the case of Shri Doshi as officiating Director. The right course for the Government in such a situation was to have passed a fresh order of appointment the rules stood amended with retrospective effect. This has never been done in the case of Shri Doshi as officiating Director. Therefore, though I hold that the amendments aforesaid are valid and they are also retrospective they cannot in the very nature of things make valid an appointment which was altogether null and void under the rules in the absence of any fresh order of appointment by the competent authority after such amendments." 8. Mr. R.C. Maheshwari, learned Additional Government Advocate, urged that the Government is competent to frame Rules with retrospective effect in exercise of its rule making power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and that the effect of giving retrospective operation to the Rules that after the retrospective amendment has been made, the validity of any action can be examined only in accordance with the provisions of the Rules as amended with retrospective effect and so, if the impugned orders are examined on the basis of the 1974 Rules as amended by the 1976 Rules with retrospective effect, it cannot be said that the said orders are invalid. In other words it was contended that m such circumstances the question of validation of the impugned orders does not arise. He has referred to Rajkumar's case (1975 Lab IC 669) (SC). In that case, the services of the appellant who was working as Airport Ticket Clerk in Civil Aviation Department was ordered to be terminated forthwith and it was directed that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the date on which the order was served on him or, as the case may be, tendered to him. But the pay and allowances were not paid to him at the same time at the time of the service of the order of termination of his service. He filed representation and appealed but was unsuccessful. A writ petition was filed which was also dismissed in limine. Against that the appeal was filed in pursuance of the certificate granted by the High Court. He filed representation and appealed but was unsuccessful. A writ petition was filed which was also dismissed in limine. Against that the appeal was filed in pursuance of the certificate granted by the High Court. Subrule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was amended with retrospective effect from May 1. 1965. It was contended that an order terminating the services of a temporary employee which had been passed was invalid on the date on which it was passed in view of the decision rented in Sr. Supdt. R.M.S. Cochin v. K.V. Gopmath, AIR 1972 SC 1487 : 1972 Lab IC 826 . inasmuch as one month's pay in lieu of the notice was not tendered to the Government servant along with the termination order. The Rules were amended with retrospective effect, according which it was not obligatory on it to pay the one month's pay along with the termination order. The question arose before their Lordships of the Supreme Court whether the said retrospective effect in the amendment of the Rules validates the illegal order of termination of service. It was observed in Rajkumar's case 1975 Lab IC 669 (SC) as follows (para 3):- "Once a law is given retrospective effect as from a particular date, all actions taken under the Act given before the amendment was made would be deemed to have been taken under the Act 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. The question of the particular form of the validation would always depend on the circumstances of a case and no general formula can be devised for all circumstances. It is enough to say that in the present case the action taken against the appellant was on a date subsequent to the date on which the amended rule takes effect and therefore that action being in accordance with the amended rule is legally a valid action and there is no need to have a validating provision in respect thereof." 9. It was held that when there is retrospective operation in the amendment in the Rules, the order which was passed could not be regarded as invalid and, therefore, there was no question of validating an invalid order by a retrospective amendment. It was held that when there is retrospective operation in the amendment in the Rules, the order which was passed could not be regarded as invalid and, therefore, there was no question of validating an invalid order by a retrospective amendment. The 1976 Rules which amended the 1974 Rules with retrospective effect do not have the effect of validating an invalid action, for the rule making authority has removed the cause of invalidity with retrospective effect which it was competent to do so. In view of Rajkumar's case, (1975 Lab IC 669) (SC), we have no hesitation to say that the decision in Avinash Swaroop's case (1974 Raj LW 584) does not hold good. 10. In Jagdish Swaroop's "Legislation and Interpretation of Statutes", Second Revised and Enlarged Edition, while dealing with the "validating act" at page 637 it has been stated as under:- "The power of validation must be taken to be ancillary or subsidiary to the power to deal with the particular subjects specified in the Lists. It is necessary that the Legislature should be able to cure inadvertent defects in statutes for their administration, by making what has been called "small repairs." Moreover, the individual who claims that a vested right has arisen from the defect is seeking a windfall since had the Legislature's or administrator's action had the effect it was intended to and could have had no such right would have arisen. Thus, the interest in the retroactive curing of such a defect in the administration of Government outweighs the individuals' interest in benefitting from the defect. There is a distinction between encroachment on the judicial power and the nullification of the effect of a Judicial decision by changing the law retrospectively. The former is outside the competence of the Legislature but the latter is within the permissible limits. Where the legislature wants to validate an earlier Act which had been declared to be invalid for one reason or another; it proceeds to remove the infirmity from the said Act and validates its provisions which are free from any infirmity. A validating Act is passed only when certain things have been done which require validation." 11. In Govt. of A.P. v. Hindustan Machine Tools, AIR 1975 SC 2037 validity of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act (No. 2) of 1954 came up for consideration. It was held that validity of amendment was not open to challenge. 12. A validating Act is passed only when certain things have been done which require validation." 11. In Govt. of A.P. v. Hindustan Machine Tools, AIR 1975 SC 2037 validity of Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act (No. 2) of 1954 came up for consideration. It was held that validity of amendment was not open to challenge. 12. It will be useful here to refer Hajilal Mohammad Biri Works v. Sales Tax Officer, (1959) 10 STC 424 : AIR 1959 AU 208 wherein it was observed as follows (at p. 211):- "The Legislature is certainly now competent to adopt either of the two courses, viz.. it can either enact those notifications as part of its own Act giving them retrospective operation with effect from the 31st of March 1956, or in the alternative, it can create a fiction of law of the type contained in Section 3 of the U. P. Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958. so as to give validity to the notifications already issued. The effect of Section 3 of the 1958 Act is to convert a notification issued by a State Govt., which was not valid, into a valid notification issued in exercise of the proper delegated authority conferred on the State Government by the U. P. Legislature." A Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. K.K. Bhatia, 1976 Raj LW 631 : 1976 Lab IC 1603 opined that the Public Service Commission (Regulation and Validation of Procedure) Act, 1976 has succeeded in validating the acts of the Commission impugned in those cases. 13. The reasons given above can usefully be adopted for judging the amendments made in the 1974 Rules by the Rules of 1976 giving retrospective effect. 14. It follows therefore that the amendments introduced in the 1974 Rules by the 1976 Rules cannot be said to be unconstitutional and void as they are not for the purpose of validating an invalid order or that they were intended to validate the same. The 1976 Rules though published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extra ordinary dated March 25, 1976 by notification GSR 1577 dated March 25, 1976 provides that they shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from Feb. 20, 1975. The 1976 Rules though published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extra ordinary dated March 25, 1976 by notification GSR 1577 dated March 25, 1976 provides that they shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from Feb. 20, 1975. Rule 37 of the Rules of 1974 was amended and the following proviso was substituted: "Provided further that notwithstanding the expiry of the Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service (Initial Constitution and Emergency Recruitment) Rules 1973, hereinafter referred to as the expired rules, the Committee constituted under Rule 5 of the expired rules, shall, after the expiration of the expired rules, continue to adjudge suitability of the persons referred to in the proviso (c) to Rule 6 for the purpose of the first recruitment to the Service and shall fix the seniority of such, persons in accordance with Rule 6 of the expired Rules as effectively as if the said Committee were constituted under the proviso (c) to Rule 6, and accordingly- (a) all actions and proceedings taken by the said Committee acting or purporting to act under Rules 5 and 6 of the expired rules for adjudging the suitability of the persons referred to in proviso (c) of Rule 6 and for fixing their seniority, shall be deemed to have been taken under these rules: (b) the orders made by the Appointing Authority on the basis of the recommendations of the said Committee, appointing persons referred to in the proviso (c) of Rule 6 and fixing their seniority under Rules 5 and 6 of the expired rules, shall, to all intents and for all purposes, be deemed to have been issued under these Rules; and (c) all such persons referred to in the proviso (cl to Rule 6 as were not adjudged suitable by the said Committee under Rule 6 of the expired rules for appointment to any of the posts in the Service shall, with effect from 9th day of October, 1975, stand reverted to their parent departments." According to it the persons referred to in proviso (c) to Rule 6 who were not adjudged suitable by the constituted committee under Rule 6 of the 1973 Rules (expired rules) for the appointment to any of the posts in the service were with effect from 9th day of October, 1975, to be reverted to their parent departments. By this rule the causes of the invalidity of the order Annexure 12 were removed. Such rule can be given retrospective effect and. therefore, the question of validating an illegal order of termination of service does not arise.The petitioner has referred to State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Kant, AIR 1981 SC 1990 : 1981 Lab IC 1568 to show that retrospective amendment in Rules cannot create new disabilities for an employee who had acquired right before it was promulgated and that if the rule creates disabilities, it will amount to violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. He has also referred to Ramendra Singh v. Jagdish Prasad, (1984) 1 Serv LR 520 : 1984 Lab IC 614 (SC) and Ex. Capt. K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana, (1984) 2 Serv LR 97 : 1984 Lab IC 1015 (SC) to show cause that by making an amendment in the Rules retrospectively, the right acquired or to vested right cannot be taken away. These authorities cannot be availed of by the petitioner, for the precise question before us is whether the amendments introduced in the 1974 Rules by the 1976 Rule were unconstitutional and void inasmuch as the power which was conferred on the Governor under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for the purpose of validating an invalid order and the intended purpose of the 1976 Rules is to validate the impugned orders Annexure 12 and Annexure 13. We have already held following Rajkumar's case, (1975 Lab IC 669) (SC) that when the amendments made in the Rules have retrospective operation, the impugned orders Annexure 12 and Annexure 13 could not be regarded as invalid and the question of validating the invalid orders by retrospective amendment does not arise. The cause of invalidity has been removed by making amendments in the 1974 Rules which are to operate retrospectively. It follows therefore, that the petitioner who was only working on temporary basis in the Food and Civil Supplies Department and as he was not adjudged suitable by the Screening Committee constituted under R. 5 of the 1973 Rules had no right to remain on the post in the Food and Civil Supplies Department and for that matter when he has been sent back to his parent Department by order Anx. 12. no illegality has been committed. 12. no illegality has been committed. It may be recalled here that in Harinarain Sainik's case (supra) it was held by the Court that the appointment made on the post of Enforcement Officer in the Food and Supplies Department in pursuance of the order dated July 25, 1964. was not in accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Rules and were invalid. The petitioner had no legal right to hold the post as held in Roshanlal Sharma's Special Appeal (supra). 15. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to examine the first question referred by the learned Single Judge that the order of reversion Anx. 12 has been passed in violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. 16. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order Anx. 12 is not illegal and invalid. It does not suffer from any infirmity. 17. It may be mentioned that the petitioner besides citing the aforesaid authorities, relied on other rulings and gave their citations in writing. It is not necessary to examine them in view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at. 18. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 19. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 20. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition dismissed. *******