SHYAMSUNDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is now working as a manager in the office of commissioner, corporation of the city of Bangalore was anxiously bidding his turn for the chance of being promoted to the higher post of deputy revenue officer. According to the petitioner this opportunity for pressing forward his claim for promotion as deputy revenue officer arose in the year 1986 but even before it could materialise he found the government of Karnataka having retrospectively amended the Karnataka municipal corporation rules, 1977 treating it as having held the field since 31st july, 1984 and had certainly resulted in grave detriment to the petitioner who found that the only chance of being elevated to the post of deputy revenue officer was snatched from him by the aforesaid amendment earmarking the post of deputy revenue officer only to asst. Revenue officers. ( 2 ) IT is common ground that prior to the aforesaid amendment referred to supra produced herein as annexure-b, the post of deputy revenue officer was accessible to three different categories of persons namely (i) council secretary, (ii) manager, commissioner's office and (iii) asst. Revenue officers with minimum service of three years. Mr. Narayana rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that the promotional post of deputy revenue officers has to be rotated amongst these three categories in the proportion of 1:1:1. Mr. Keshavan, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Castelino for the corporation, says 'no'. Anyhow it is not necessary to get embroiled in this dispute because till 1986 the manager of the commissioner's office had a chance for being promoted as deputy revenue officer. ( 3 ) BE that as it may, the question for consideration herein is whether the amended Rule which took away the chance of promotion of a manager to the post of deputy revenue officer can be tracked back to july, 1984. The offending Rule reads:"title and commencement: 1) these rules may be called the Karnataka municipal corporation (Amendment) rules, 1987. (2) they shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 31st day of july, 1984. 2. Amendment of Rule 26: in Rule 26 of the Karnataka municipal corporation rules, 1977 in the table under the heading 'bangalore city corporation" under the sub-heading (i) (a) 'administration'. (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Amendment of Rule 26: in Rule 26 of the Karnataka municipal corporation rules, 1977 in the table under the heading 'bangalore city corporation" under the sub-heading (i) (a) 'administration'. (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) under the sub-heading 'b' revenue- (a) in the entries relating to the category of posts of 'revenue officers at sl. No. 9 for the entries in column 3, the following shall be substituted, namely: - "by promotion from the cadre of dy. Revenue officers. " (b) for the category of posts of octroi superintendent and dy. Revenue officers, at si. No. 10 and entries in column No. 2 and 3, the following shall be substituted namely. "deputy revenue officers: by promotion from the cadre ofasst. Revenue officers. " (emphasis supplied) from the conspectus of the Rule as now amended and excerpted above it is obvious that it clearly seals the fate of the petitioner once and for all and pegs him down to the post of the manager of the commissioner's office till he attains the age of superannuation. It gives him no chance of promotion by taking away the one and only chance he had of improving his position by attaining the post of deputy revenue officer subject to being otherwise eligible. It is not denied and cannot be denied but for the tracking back of this Rule which is definitely hostile to the petitioner, to the year 1984 chances of the petitioner attaining the higher post would have (sic) stood untramelled notwithstanding the passing of such Rule, provided it was prospective in character. What has affected or ruined the chances of the petitioner is the factum of the Rule being pulled back and made to come alive notionally from the year 1984 so that it clearly put paid to the aspirations of the petitioner to a promotional post when for the first time that chance came his way. ( 4 ) MR. Narayana rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that the Rule in question is totally invalid on the principle any Rule which affects the service condition of an employee cannot be made to operate from an anterior date since that would take away or impair a right that had vested in an employee, while Mr. ( 4 ) MR. Narayana rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that the Rule in question is totally invalid on the principle any Rule which affects the service condition of an employee cannot be made to operate from an anterior date since that would take away or impair a right that had vested in an employee, while Mr. Keshavan for the corporation urges the petitioner cannot be said to have any vested right to the promotional post and, therefore, urges the Rule albeit being retrospective cannot be said to have affected any right vested in the petitioner, I am afraid the contention of Mr. Keshavan, as aforesaid, is clearly untenable. ( 5 ) WHILE it is true and it is also trite law an employee has no right to promotion as such and the right he has consists only of asking his employer to consider him for promotion but if that right of the employee to commend his case for promotion itself is taken away by a Rule which operates retrospectively, such a Rule is invalid is what the Supreme Court pointed out in P. D. Aggarwal v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 1676 . This particular aspect is clearly brought into sharp focuss by their lordships's observation in para 16 at page 1684. It reads:"it is well settled that any Rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This Rule is however subject to a well recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a Rule under the proviso to article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights. Therefore unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words such rules laying down qualifications for promotion made with retrospective effect must necessarily satisfy the tests of articles 14 and 16 (1) of the constitution. Therefore unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words such rules laying down qualifications for promotion made with retrospective effect must necessarily satisfy the tests of articles 14 and 16 (1) of the constitution. " (emphasis supplied) regard being had to the dicta of the Supreme Court as aforesaid, it becomes clear the removal of the petitioner's clan from the category of persons eligible to compete with others for promotion to the higher post of a deputy revenue officer, has clearly and definitely impaired a right that had already vested in the petitioner prior to the enactment of the amendment. To that extent the Rule is clearly invalid. ( 6 ) THAT apart, i must also notice that under Section 421-a of the Karnataka municipal corporation's Act, 1976 which covers these matters any Rule under the act can be given retrospective effect provided the reasons for making such retrospective Rule is specified in a statement made before both the house of legislature in which event the Rule would have such an effect subject, ofcourse, to modifications, if any by the legislature as enjoined under sub-section 6 thereof. If the Rule has been framed after following this procedure the Rule in question can be treated as having been validly framed under the act. Sub-section (4-a) of Section 421 of the Karnataka municipal Corporation Act, reads:" (4-A) a Rule under this act may be made with retrospective effect, and when such a Rule is made, the reasons for making the Rule shall be specified in a statement laid before both houses of the state legislature, and subject to any modification made under sub-section (6), every Rule made under this Act, shall have effect as if enacted in this act. "in order to find out whether the stipulated procedure had been followed at the time of introducing the amended sub-rule 26 (b) i called up the relevant file from the secretary housing and urban development department but on thumbing through the pages of the file i found it not possible to get any information relevant for judging the validity of the Rule in the light of the procedure prescribed by sub-rule (4-a ). But, i do not wish to go into the aforesaid aspect of the matter and shall rest content by pointing out that Rule 26 (b) as amended by the Amendment Act of 1988 under which the post of deputy revenue officer stands earmarked only for the asst. Revenue officers is invalid and stand quashed since it affects a right vested in the petitioner to have his claim for promotion being considered by the authorities. ( 7 ) IN the result, therefore, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. There will now be a direction to the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from the year 1986 when the channel of promotion to the post of deputy revenue officer was opened for the first time and if found fit the respondent will promote him from the year 1986 to the post of deputy revenue officer in which event the petitioner will be entitled to all the monetary benefits flowing therefrom to be computed from the year 1986. The directions in this behalf shall be carried out by the corporation within two months from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Keshavan, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Castelino, counsel for the corporation. (sic ). Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .