JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the amendment made in U.P. Secretariat Ministerial Staff Rules, 1942 by which a proviso has been added to Rule 9 with retrospective effect, and have prayed that the words and be deemed always to have been inserted may be quashed and a direction may be issued commanding the opposite parties not to act upon the Notification contained in Annexure No. 10, retrospectively. 2. Writ petition No. 3108 of 1988 has been filed by Syed Shafiq Ahmad, who is opposite party in the other writ Petition No. 8233 of 1987 praying for the quashing of his reversion order dated 29.4.1987 and order dated 27.1.1988 and it be declared that he has been continuously working on the post of Section Officer, Language (Urdu) and he may be deemed to be holding the post of Section Officer, as ordered in Notification No. 241/II687, dated 30.3. 1987. 3. The petitioners of Writ Petition No. 8233 of 1987, who ire graduates, applied for appointment on the post of Translators in the Language Department of the Secretariat on adhoc basis and they joined the posts between 1975 and 1976. The post of translators is filled up through Competitive examination by the State Government subject to the provisions of section 12 of the Staff Rules while the academic qualification has been prescribed in Rule 9 (2) of the U. P. Secretariat Ministerial Staff Rules, 1942. The petitioners have averred that few other persons who did not fulfil the prescribed qualification were also appointed as Translators. After the enforcement of the U. P. Regulations of Adhoc Appointments (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, the State Government issued a Circular on 10.1.1980 enclosing therein a tentative seniority list of the Urdu Translators and objection to the same was invited. Name of Shafiq Ahmad and Bashiruddin Ahmad were shown at serial Nos. 4 and 8 of the seniority list even though they were not graduates in Urdu but their educational qualification was shown as B.A. Adib Kamil (Urdu). The State Government vide G. O. dated 14.7.1982 for the first time issued instructions that Degree of AdibeKamil of Aligarh should be recognised for the purposes of appointments against the posts on which educational qualification is B. A. Urdu. The State Government vide G. O. dated 14.7.1982 for the first time issued instructions that Degree of AdibeKamil of Aligarh should be recognised for the purposes of appointments against the posts on which educational qualification is B. A. Urdu. Vide order dated 9.6.1982, the petitioners and others who were covered by the Rules were regularised and confirmed on the post of Translators. In the confirmation order it was provided that said confirmation would be subject to the decision of writ petition filed by one Smt. Sabre Nighat (writ petition No. 2813 of 1980). The said writ petition was dismissed on 12.1.1983 The petitioners were conifrmed with effect from 1.11.1980. According to the petitioners, those persons who were not eligible for regulansation were given promotion to the post of revisors ignoring the claim of promotion of persons who were regularised and were confirmed in the Language Department. Against this action, the petitioners preferred claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal and before the Tribunal, the State Government clarified its stand and Sated that it appears that due to nonavailability of qualified hands and keeping in view the interest of Government work, the opposite parties 4 and 5 were appointed to the posts of Urdu Translators on adhoc basis. It is a fact that both these persons at the time of their adhoc appointments as Translators did not possess the requisite educational qualifications as prescribed under Rules, i. e. though being graduates, they had not passed B.A. Examination with Arabic, persian or Urdu as one of the subjects. However, as said earlier, the opposite parties 4 and 5 continued to work as Urdu Translators The Tribunal observed: It was not disputed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 that there is no seniority list and matter of seniority is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Then it is contended by opposite parties that at present opposite parties 1 to 3 are not effecting any promotion. In the circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are directed not to make any promotion without permission of this Tribunal. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the order dated 13.5. Then it is contended by opposite parties that at present opposite parties 1 to 3 are not effecting any promotion. In the circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are directed not to make any promotion without permission of this Tribunal. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the order dated 13.5. 1986 passed by the Tribunal, the opposite parties passed an order dated 29 10.1986 by which the Translators i. e. Sri Shafiq Ahmed and Bashiruddin Ahmad, who were not regularised and were not confirmed along with the petitioners due to lack of educational qualification, were ordered to be regularised with effect from 15.10. 1980 and they were also confirmed from the same date and, thus, with retrospective effect they were made members of the service with effect from the same date from which the petitioners were made members of the service. Although the matter is still pending before the Public Services Tribunal, vide order dated 30th March, 1987 promoted Sri Syed Shafiq Ahmad as Section Officer. The petitioners moved contempt petition against the Secretary, Secretariat Administration Department who issued the order and in the counter affidavit it was mentioned that by Notification No. 1652/20E5366 (Mis.) /1981 dt. March 31, 1986 a proviso was added to clause (2) of the Rule 9 of the U.P. Secretariat Ministerial Staff Rules, 1942 with the consultation of Public Service Commission. Thereafter, after contempt notice was issued by this Court, order of promotion was cancelled vide order dated 29th April, 1987 and unconditional apology was tendered. 5. The proviso added in Clause (2) of Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat Ministerial Staff Rules, 1942, the following proviso was added: Provided that the requirement of having taken Urdu, Persian or Arabic shall not be necessary in case of a candidate who has passed the AdibeKamil examination of Jamia UrduAligarh. 6. This proviso was given retrospective effect as it was mentioned that the proviso shall be inserted and be deemed always to have been inserted. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that since the case of Sri Shafiq Ahmad and Sri Bashiruddin Ahmad were covered under the proviso, their services were regularised and they were confirmed on the post of Translator with effect from 1.11.1980. 7. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that since the case of Sri Shafiq Ahmad and Sri Bashiruddin Ahmad were covered under the proviso, their services were regularised and they were confirmed on the post of Translator with effect from 1.11.1980. 7. The opposite parties, in their counter affidavit, have placed reliance on the definition of 'Degree of a University' as defined under Rule 2 (e) of the U.P. Secretariat Ministerial Staff Rules, 1942 which means a Degree of a University established by law in India or any other Degree, Diploma or Certificate recognized by Government as equivalent thereto for purposes of recruitment to Public Services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. It has also been stated that the Central Government has recognised the Degree of 'AdibeKamil' of Jamia Urdu Aligarh vide its order dated 29th June, 1978 and that the State Government vide notification dated 15th October, 1963 while laying down the minimum qualification in respect to teachers of Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu and other languages has recognised trained AdibeKamil of the Jamia Urdu Aligarh to be equivalent to trained B.A. with Urdu. It has been stated that Shafiq Ahmad was appointed as Assistant in the U.P. Civil Secretariat on 16.2 1959 and by virtue of his merit and educational qualification, he was appointed as Translator (Urdu) vide order dated 28.2.1973 in temporary capacity while the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis much after his appointment. It has also been stated that appointment of opposite party No. 3 was also made prior to the appointment of the petitioners. 8. Shafiq Ahmad, petitioner in writ petition No. 3108 of 1988 has also placed reliance on the Regularisation Rules of 1979 which read as under : 4. (1) Any person who (i) was directly appointed on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1977 and is continuing in service, as such, on date of commencement of these rules. (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment at the time of such ad hoc appointment; and (iii) has completed, or, as the case may be after he has completed three years continuous service, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temorary vacancy as may be available on the basis of his record and suitabilty before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders.'' 9. It has been pleaded that on the basis of seniority, work and performance, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Urdu Translator to the post of Reviser (Urdu) on 5.1.1980 while Mohd. Suleman Siddiqi and Jamilur Rehman Khan (petitioners in Writ Petition No. 8233 of 1987) were promoted as Reviser (Urdu) with effect from 18.8.1985 and Mohammad Ahmad and Tariq Mohammad Khaliq Siddiqi (also petitioners in Writ petition No. 8233 of 1987). Were promoted as Reviser (Urdu) with effect from 6.3.1986. He has placed reliance on the executive order by which the State Government has laid down the criteria for the promotion of Section Officers in the Language Department. The said Executive Order dated 8th September, 1986 provides that for promotion to the post of Section Officer (Urdu) the requisite qualification shall be 10 years of continuous service on the post of Translator (inclusive of service rendered in temporary and ad hoc capacity) including 3 years minimum service rendered as a confirmed Urdu Reviser. However, relaxation in qualification has been provided in respect to such promotion if there is no qualified candidate available for such promotion. It is stated that relaxation provides that in such a case Urdu Translator having completed five years of continuous service and having rendered one year's regular service as Urdu Reviser shall also be eligible for promotion to the post of Section Officer (Urdu). Syed Shafiq Ahmad claims himself to be the only person who fulfilled the requisite qualifications for being promoted to the post of Section Officer (Urdu). According to him, there was no permanent Reviser (Urdu) in the Department and he alone was covered by the relaxation clause provided in the Executive Order inasmuch as he had completed more than five years of continuous service as Urdu Translator and also completed more than seven years of service as Urdu Reviser. It has been stated by him that he was appointed as Section Officer vide order dated 30th March, 1987 in temporary and officiating capacity and has worked on six occasions against said post which was earlier known as Language Officer (Urdu) and as a result of the order passed by the Tribunal, the reversion order was passed reverting him from the post of Section Officer, which post for the first time was sanctioned in the Year 1963 and remained unfilled till 13.5.1983. Against his reversion order, the petitioner Syed Shafiq Ahmad filed writ petition No. 3301 of 1987, but no interim orders were passed in the said Writ petition. However, vide order dated 19.8.87 passed by this Court, it was directed that in case the petitioner or the State Government approach the Public Service Tribunal, there is no question why their application will not be decided within a week. It was thereafter that the petitioner filed application before the learned Tribunal on 9.9.1987 for recalling order dated 13.5.1988, but the same has not yet been disposed of. Subsequently, the petitioner was again reverted from the post of Reviser (Urdu) to the post of Translator (Urdu) vide order dated 27.1.1988, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition and the grievance of the petitioner is that juniors to him, who are petitioners in writ petition No. 833 of 1987, have been retained as Reviser (Urdu) but he alone has been reverted. 10. So far as educational qualification in concerned, the Government has got no specific power to relax the minimum educational qualifications. It has been held in the case of Jit Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others ( AIR 1979 SC 1034 ) that it is not permissible for the State to reduce the age of eligibility from six years to four years. In Umesh Chandra Shukla Versus Union of India & Others ( AIR 1985 SC 1351 ) the Court held that the device of moderation for increasing minimum qualifying marks being improper is liable to be struck down. 11. We are thus of the view that so far as requisite qualification is concerned, no relaxation in the basic qualification can be granted as has been done in this case. 12. In the instant case (W. P. No. 8233 of 1987) the opposite parties Shafiq Ahmad and Bashiruddin Ahmad did not possess the requisite minimum qualification as they were not Graduates in Urdu. In respect of teachers, the State Government recognised the Degree of trained AdibeKamil of the Jamia Urdu Aligarh to be equivalent to trained B. A. with Urdu, but it did not recognise the degree of AdibeKamil of the Jamia Urdu Aligarh to be equivalent to B. A. which was recognised for the first time vide notification referred to above. It is only after recognition of said qualification, the opp. It is only after recognition of said qualification, the opp. parties were confirmed with effect from 1980. The petitioners were confirmed earlier with effect from the particular date. Subsequent regularisation and confirmation with effect from that particular date will not make those who were subsequently regularised and confirmed though with retrospective effect senior to those who were already regularised and confirmed on the particular date and in the hierarchy they will come after those who were confirmed prior to their confirmation, may it be with effect from that date. As such, the petitioners were seniors to the opposite parties as Translators. 13. The interim order passed by the Tribunal was subsisting and during the subsistence of the interim order passed by the learned Tribunal, by which the learned Tribunal had directed that no promotions shall be made without the permission of the Tribunal, if any promotion was made, obviously, the same could not be legally recognised and it seems that is why the promotion order was cancelled. The Rules were amended with retrospective effect and it was provided that it will be deemed always to have been inserted whereby making the degtee of AdibeKamil examination of Jamia Urdu, Aligarh to be equivalent to B. A. (Urdu) from beginning. 14. It was strongly contended on behalf of the petitioners that Rules cannot be amended with retrospective effect while on behalf of the opposite parties it was stated that it can be so amended. 15. On behalf of the petitioners reference was made to the case reported in P.D. Agarwal and others versus State of U.P. and others ( 1987 3 SCC 622 ) and it was contended that by means of the impugned amendment, rights which have been vested in the petitioners have been taken away inasmuch as the seniority has been disturbed and they have been made juniors and their juniors have been nude seniors. It was held that Government has power to make retrospective amendments to the Rules, but if the Rules purport to take away the vested rights and are arbitrary and not reasonable, then such retrospective amendments are subject to judicial scrutiny if they have infringed Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 16. It was held that Government has power to make retrospective amendments to the Rules, but if the Rules purport to take away the vested rights and are arbitrary and not reasonable, then such retrospective amendments are subject to judicial scrutiny if they have infringed Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 16. In this connection reference was made to the case reported in Pyare Lal Sharma, Managing Director and others (1989 (3) Supreme Court Cases 448) in which similar view was taken and the Court observed that vested rights cannot be taken away retrospectively. It was further observed that a proviso to a Rule cannot act with retrospective effect so as to divest a vested right Reference was also made to the case of M/s. Machinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. versus Audrey D'Costa and another (1987) 2 SCC 469 ) wherein it was held that ambit of a proviso cannot be stretched beyond its main provision. In this case Section 4 (3) of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 was considered and it was held that where a settlement had been arrived at between the management and the employees after negotiations, the same cannot be a valid ground for effecting discrimination m payment of renuneration between male and female employees performing same or similar nature of work. In the said case after settlement was arrived at there was a common pay scale both for men and women. The discrimination was, however, brought about while carrying out the fitment of the lady stenographers in the said scale of pay. In these circumstances, it was held that since there are no different scales of pay in instant case, subsection (3) of Section 4 of the Act would not be attracted and consequently, the proviso would not be applicable at all. 17. On behalf of the opposite parties, reference was made to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Autar Pandey versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another (AIR 1962 Allahabad 328) in which altering age of superannuation from 58 to 55 years was challenged. It was held that the rulemaking power conferred by Art. 309 on the Governor or his nominee is not confined to prospective rulemaking and appears to be wide enough to include the making of rules with retrospective effect. 18. It was held that the rulemaking power conferred by Art. 309 on the Governor or his nominee is not confined to prospective rulemaking and appears to be wide enough to include the making of rules with retrospective effect. 18. It is true that Rules can be given effect with retrospective effect, but at the same time, the rules cannot divest a right which has already vested in a person. The Rule9, as it existed at the relevant time provided: 9 Academic qualifications The minimum academic qualification required of candidates for direct recruitment to various categories of posts shall be (1) ... (2) Translators (Hindi and Urdu): A Degree of a University. A candidate for the post of Translator must have taken one of the following languages in his degree examination: (1) Urdu (2) Hindi (3) Persian (4) Sanskrit (5) Arabic 19. It is, thus evident that minimum qualification for the post of Translator is that he should possess degree from a University with one of the languages which include Urdu, Hindi, Persian, Sanskrit and Arabic. The State Government recognised the degree of AdibeKamil of the Jamia Urdu, Aligarh in the year 1986 by means of the proviso. The proviso, as held earlier, cannot go beyond the ambit of its main provision and cannot act with retrospective effect so as to divest a vested right. The Government had no right to change the minimum educational qualification and the proviso in this behalf cannot be made with retrospective effect, and, as such, the words shall be inserted and be deemed always to have been inserted deserve to be struck down. 20. In this view the opposite parties were not entitled to any promotion prior to the promotion of the petitioners. 21. The petitioner in writ petition No. 3108 of 1988 who was, thus, not senior to the petitioners in Writ Petition No, 8233 of 1987 and was promoted quietly and against the order passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribune and the said order of promotion was rightly cancelled and the State Government has rightly reverted him to the post of Reviser (Urdu) and the order was passed without taking permission of the Public Services Tribunal and without taking into consideration the correct position regarding seniority of the petitioners to both the writ petition, 22. In the result, the writ petition No. 3108 of 1988 is dismissed. In the result, the writ petition No. 3108 of 1988 is dismissed. Writ Petition No. 8233 of 1987 is allowed to the extent that the words and be deemed always to have been inserted in the Uttar Pradesh Secretariat Ministerial Staff (Amendment) Rules, 1986 shall be struck down and are not to be read and further a mandamus is issued to the opposite parties not to act on the notification contained in Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition i. e. the amendment to the Rule insofar as the pharase and be deemed always to have been inserted is concerned. 23. However, there will be no order as to costs in both the writ petitions.