JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the amendment dated 20th May, 1975 and 3rd April, 1980 made in the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 (here in after referred to as the Rules of 1954). The petitioner has further prayed that promotions made vide orders dated 11th August, 1975 and 29th August, 1979 may be quashed and the seniority list issued on 3rd September, 1975 may also be quashed. The petitioner has prayed that he was appointed substantively against permanent post of the Assistant Engineer, thereby he should be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. He has further prayed that the recruitment of respondents Nos. 13 to 16 and 18 to 28 in the Rajasthan Canal Project Department and Irrigation Department may be quashed. 2. The petitioner after obtaining diploma in Mechanical Engineering was appointed as drawing instructor at Polytechnic College, Jodhpur. Subsequently the petitioner was selected as drawing instructor and was appointed as such in substantive capacity on the permanent post of drawing instructor with effect from March 10, 1965. The petitioner passed AMIE (Mech,) examination from the Institute of Engineers (India) and was appointed as Officiating Lecturer in Mechnical Engineering at Polytechnic College, Kota. Thereafter he was regularly selected on this post vide order dated 2nd July, 1968. 3. The petitioner was declared surplus from the service of the Board of Technical Education and was absorbed in the service as Assistant Engineer (Mechnical) by the Absorption Committee of the GAD by the order dated 8th December, 1969. The Chief Engineer in pursuance of the recommendation of the Absorption Committee appointed the petitioner as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department vide order dated 19th December, 1969 and the petitioner is continuing on this post. 4. Mr. Mardia, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the persons who have been recruited in the Rajasthan Canal Department cannot be deemed to be member of the Rajasthan Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 and therefore they cannot be placed above the petitioner. Secondly he submitted that the amendments made in the Rules of 1954 are illegal and they should be quashed. 5. Before taking up the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it will be necessary to recapitulate some facts. Secondly he submitted that the amendments made in the Rules of 1954 are illegal and they should be quashed. 5. Before taking up the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it will be necessary to recapitulate some facts. That when the Rajasthan Canal Project was taken up and the respondents were in need of candidates, immediately the posts falling in the Rajasthan Canal Project were taken out from the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission with its concurrence and the Governor prescribed minimum educational qualifications vide order dated 9th April, 1963 (Annexure-1). Thereafter a High Power Committee was constituted and the Committee made the recruitment on the various posts after advertising the same and interviewed the candidates in terms of the age and qualifications as laid down in the order dated 9th April, 1963. Thus, the candidates were selected in the Rajasthan Canal Project on the recommendations of the Committee and appointed. 6. Thereafter the Rules of 1954 were amended by the Notification dated 20th May, 1975 and proviso (iii) in Rule 7 was added. By this proviso it was incorporated that the persons selected on or after 21-2-1964 for the posts of Assistants Engineers (Mechanical) in the Rajasthan Canal Project by the Committee constituted under Appointment Department Notification dated 11-1-1965 shall be deemed to have been recruited by the method of direct recruitment to the service if they fulfilled the minimum qualification prescribed by the RCP Department. In Rule 28 of the Rules of 1954 a new proviso (v) was added after provise (iv). It provided that the persons appointed to the service during the same year under proviso (iii) to sub Rule (1) of Rule 7 shall rank junior to the persons appointed to the service under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7. By these amendments all the persons recruited under the Rajasthan Canal Project became members of the service provided they fulfilled the qualifications' laid down by the RCP Department. After they became the members of the service these persons were assigned seniority and promoted accordingly. It is this amendment which is being sought to be challenged by the petitioner through this writ petition. Mr. After they became the members of the service these persons were assigned seniority and promoted accordingly. It is this amendment which is being sought to be challenged by the petitioner through this writ petition. Mr. Mardia learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such amendment with retrospective effect is bad and it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as well as beyond the scope of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Mardia in support of his contention cited the case of R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah and Anr. AIR 1912 SC 1767 and Avinash Swaroop v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. 1974 WLN 647 . I am afraid both these cases do not help the petitioner in any way. It may be stated at the out set that it has been established beyond doubt that under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution the Governor can frame the Rules prospectively and retrospectively. In the case of R. N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thiamaiah (supra) so far as the framing of the Rules prospectively. is concerned the same was not disputed but what was contended was that case of one individual person cannot be regularised retrospectively and such kind of validation of one particular individual from the retrospective effect was found to be illegal. But this is not the case here. Here all the persons form a class namely, who were recruited by the Rajasthan Canal Project by taking the posts out of the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service and thereafter selecting the candidates by a Selection Committee and after interviewing them these persons appointed those persons are sought to be governed by the Rules of 1954. Thus, it is not a case of regularisation of one particular individual. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under: "(A)(B)(C) Article 309 speaks of rules for appointment and general conditions of service. Regularization of appointment by stating that not with standing any rules the appointment is regularised strikes at the root of the rules and if the effect of the regularisation is to nullify the separation and effectiveness of the rules, the rule itself is open to crimicism on the ground that it is in violation of the current rules. Regularization of appointment by stating that not with standing any rules the appointment is regularised strikes at the root of the rules and if the effect of the regularisation is to nullify the separation and effectiveness of the rules, the rule itself is open to crimicism on the ground that it is in violation of the current rules. Therefore the Mysore Rules of 1967 cannot be permitted to stand to operate as a regularisation of appointment of one person in utter defiance of rules requiring consideration of seniority and merit in the case of promotion and consideration of appointment by selection or by competitive examination." 7. Thus, it was only for regularisation of one particular individual was found to be bad. But as is apparent from the aforesaid narration that so far as respondents who are sought to be governed by the amendments in the Rules of 1954 do not amount to regularisation of one particular person but it is a class of persons who were recruited in peculiar circumstances are being sought to be governed by the Amendment in the Rules of 1954 so as to bring them under one department i.e. Irrigation Department of Government of Rajasthan. 8. In the case of Avinash Swaroop v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra) it was held that appointed of one particular person was being sought to be regularised by amending the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1953, therefore, the regularisation of one single individual by amending the Rules was held to be illegal on the basis of R.N. Nanjundappa's case(supra). Since I have explained the circumstances in which the rules were struck down, same reasoning is not applicable in the present case and as such this case is also not of any avail to the petitioner. In this connection it may also be referred that, so far as framing of the Rules prospectively and retrospectively, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Vadera v. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 1156 has laid down that the Rules can be framed prospectively and retrospectively. In this connection it may also be referred that, so far as framing of the Rules prospectively and retrospectively, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Vadera v. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 1156 has laid down that the Rules can be framed prospectively and retrospectively. Thus in view of the power being conferred on the Governor under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to frame Rules prospectively and retrospectively and the Rules of 1954 were accordingly amended and it is not in the nature of regulation of one particular person but a class of persons who were recruited in the Rajasthan Canal Project in the aforesaid circumstances. In this view of the matter the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any basis and it is rejected. 9. Next, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the seniority list dated 3rd September, 1975 is also bad because these persons were not regularly recruited in Rules of 1954 and they cannot be assigned seniority higher than the petitioner. As already mentioned above that by virtue of the amendment in the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1954 the persons who were recruited in the Rajasthan Canal Project has been assigned seniority below the persons appointed to the Service under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7. Once I have found the amendment in Rule 7 valid, therefore, the assignment of seniority to all these persons by virtue of Rule 28 is not bad in any respect. 10. Next the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some persons who were not eligible as per the qualifications laid down in the Notification dated 9th April, 1963 in the Rajasthan Canal Project, such person appointments should be quashed. In connection the learned counsel has already submitted that the appointment of Shri G.N. Bhargava has already been set aside by this Court, therefore, I need not dialate on this aspect. 11. In the result I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ dismissed. *******