M. S. Ramachandra Panicker v. State of Kerala — 1991 DIGILAW 313 (KER)

JUDGMENT 1. The main question that calls for determination in this Original Petition is the validity and scope of amended R.185 and 200, and the newly added R.201 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules') 2. Petitioners and respondents 6 to 51 are the employees of the 5th respondent Cooperative Society which was registered in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (for short 'the Act'). Respondents 6 to 41 were holding various posts in the society as on 1st January 1974. S.80 of the Act provided for the classification of Societies and for making rules regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowance and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of different classes of Societies. Even though the Act came into force in 1969, the rules under S.80 were framed and brought into force only with effect from 1st January 1974. The said rules are contained in Chap.15 of the Rules as Rules' 182 to 200. R.186 of the rules fixed the qualification for appointment. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bye laws 34 and 35 of the Society. Bye law 34 (1) provides that the 5th respondent shall not appoint any person as paid officer or employee in any category of service, unless he possesses the qualification and also furnishes security. Bye law 34 (2) enjoins that the bank shall not retain in service any employee if he does not acquire the qualification, unless the Registrar relaxes the provisions of sub clause (1) of the bye laws. Before the promulgation of the aforesaid statutory rules, the bank had adopted and was following the service rules of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank and therefore, that was the rules which governed the conditions of service, qualifications for holding different posts and other matters relating to service in the bank. Though the bank had approved another set of service rules on the model recommended by a committee constituted by the Government to go into the question of preparation of service conditions of employees of the District Cooperative Banks, the same did not get the sanction by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies as required under clause ' 35 (2) of the bye laws. Therefore, according to the petitioner the service rules of the employees of the bank immediately before the coming into force of the Statutory Rules was the service rules of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank. In the petition the petitioner has given a comparative table as to the qualification under the said Rules and Statutory Rules as follows: "S. No. Name of Post Qualification under the rules in force prior to Ist January 1974 Qualification under the statutory rules with effect from Ist January 1974 (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. Clerks/Cashiers S.S.L.C and J.D.C S.S.L.C and J.D.C 2. Junior Accountant/Junior Inspector Graduation S.S.L.C and J.D.C 3. Senior Accountant/Inspector Graduation S.S.L.C and J.D.C 4. Branch Manager Graduation Graduation 5. Executive Officer Graduation Graduation 3. According to the petitioner, respondents 6 to 49 did not have the qualification prescribed under the Statutory Rules. For the post of Branch Managers and Executive Officers, graduation was required both under the previous rule as well as under the Statutory Rules. According to the petitioner as per the previous rule, even for holding the post of Junior Accountant/Junior Inspector, Senior Accountant/ Inspector, graduation was necessary though under the Statutory Rule S.S.L.C. and J.D.C. were enough. Therefore, according to the petitioners since as per the Statutory Rule, the qualification for the said two posts is only S.S.L.C. and J.D.C. though respondents 6 to 49 may be entitled to hold the post of Junior Accountant and Senior Accountant under the existing as well as Statutory Rules, graduation is necessary for holding the post of Branch Manager and Executive Officer. The petitioners therefore maintain that the said respondents are not entitled to be promoted to the said post and that in spite of the said position the authorities made promotion to the higher post overlooking the claims of qualified hands. Ext. P2 is the copy of the list of employees showing the details of promotions made by the authority. Respondents 6 to 49 who hold only the basic educational qualification of S.S.L.C. have been promoted to higher post as Branch Manager and Executive Officer subsequent to 1st January 1974. The bank was keeping only a single seniority list and it was the practice of the bank to maintain the seniority list for each category of post. In the common list persons holding a higher post were shown as seniors to those occupying lower post. The bank was keeping only a single seniority list and it was the practice of the bank to maintain the seniority list for each category of post. In the common list persons holding a higher post were shown as seniors to those occupying lower post. According to the petitioners the bank made such promotion holding that such benefits were conferred by R.200 of the rules on the employees who were in employment on 1st January 1974. The matter ultimately came before this court in O.P. 2630 of 1978 filed by the present petitioners and some others. The decision is Ext. P3 [reported in Narayanan Nair v. Kottayam District Cooperative Bank 1984 KLT 248 ]. According to the petitioners this court interpreted the said rule and stated that preparation of a correct seniority list is essential in the light of the legal position indicated in the judgment. But, later when a similar question came before another Bench the matter was referred to the Full Bench and the decision of the Full Bench is reported in Bhaskaran v. Additional Secretary 1987 (2) KLT 903 (FB) wherein among other thing the scope of R.200 was interpreted. According to the petitioners as per the said decision respondents 6 to 49 are not entitled to hold the post of Branch Manager or Executive Officer. In spite of the said decision the 5th respondent was delaying to prepare the list. So respondents 50 and 51 filed A.R.C. 17 of 1978 under S.69 of the Act. By Ext. P4 decision in the said case respondent No. 5 is directed to review the promotions within a reasonable time in accordance with Ext. P3 decision. The bank later published Ext. P10 seniority list on 30th June 1985 stating that the same was tentatively approved by the Board of Directors. According to the petitioners, respondents 7 to 30 are shown as Branch Managers even though all of them are not qualified to hold the post of Branch Manager. The second petitioner filed Ext. P11 objection to the said list. Since the bank was delaying to prepare the revised seniority list, Ext. P8 notice was sent for which Ext. P19 reply was received stating that some more time is required. Ext. The second petitioner filed Ext. P11 objection to the said list. Since the bank was delaying to prepare the revised seniority list, Ext. P8 notice was sent for which Ext. P19 reply was received stating that some more time is required. Ext. P23 application was moved by certain employees before the Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Societies pointing out the failure of the bank to implement the orders of the court as well as that of the Arbitrator. On 17th June 1988 R.185 and 200 were amended and new R.201 was incorporated, copy of which is Ext. P24. According to the petitioners the amendment does not affect the right of the petitioners; alternatively the said amendments are invalid as the same are discriminatory. The petitioners contend many of the promotions were granted during the pendency of Ext. P4 proceedings in spite of Ext. P25 order by the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners challenge the promotion and seek to issue a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 to 5 to take action under S.65, 66 and 68 of the Act and R.176 of the rules; to direct the society and its officers to revert respondents 6 to 49 from the pests which they are occupying and for other reliefs. 4. According to the first respondent by the amendment dated 17th June 1988 the employees who were in service prior to the introduction of the rules under S.80 of the Act are also eligible for promotion to the higher posts as per R.185(2) read with R.200 in relaxation of the qualification. The 5th respondent; respondents 11, 12, 22, 27, 28, 29, 38, 41, 46 and 49, and respondents 30 to 34, 42 and 45 have also filed counter affidavit. According to them the O.P. itself is not maintainable and the case of the petitioner that before the statutory rule came into force on 1st January 1974 the rule regulating the qualification and service conditions of the officers of the 5th respondent was the service rules of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank is not correct; but rule applicable was Ext. R5(c) rules which was approved by the Director Board. As per the said rule they were qualified to be promoted to the post which they hold and their right for promotion is saved by R.200 of the Rules. R5(c) rules which was approved by the Director Board. As per the said rule they were qualified to be promoted to the post which they hold and their right for promotion is saved by R.200 of the Rules. Therefore even though their promotions were after 1st January 1974, they are entitled to hold the post. It was alternatively contended that by virtue of the amendment to R.185, 200 and the addition of new R.201 their promotions are valid. Consequently the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the O.P. 5. As to the maintainability of the O.P. the contention raised by the 5th respondent is that no relief under Art.226 of the Constitution can be obtained against a Cooperative Society. According to the learned counsel for the respondents though the prayers in the O.P. is couched in such a manner as if the same are directed against respondents 1 to 4 really in content and purpose the prayers being against the 5th respondent society, the relief cannot be allowed. Reliance was placed mainly on the decision in Ramakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala 1988 (2) KLT 102 wherein it is observed referring the decision in Bhaskaran v. Additional Secretary 1987 (2) KLT 903 (FB): "Thus it was declared that the right to higher age of superannuation conferred by the bye laws was saved. After declaring the law as aforesaid, the prayer of the petitioners in those cases for a declaration that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years, was negatived on the ground that consistently this court has held that no writ will lie against a cooperative society." But the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions in Saraswathi Amma v. Kerala State Cooperative Bank 1990 (2) KLT 755 and Abdul Kareem v. Unnikamma 1990 (2) KLT 735 to contend that the words "any person or authority" employed in Art.226 will not confine only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State; these words will cover any other person or body discharging public duty. Since the Cooperative Society is functioning under the rules framed under S.80 of the Act concerning the service conditions of the employees, the same would be treated as discharging public duty and consequently a relief under Art.226 of the Constitution is maintainable. Since the Cooperative Society is functioning under the rules framed under S.80 of the Act concerning the service conditions of the employees, the same would be treated as discharging public duty and consequently a relief under Art.226 of the Constitution is maintainable. It was also contender that even assuming that the management is vested in a private body, as the Management by the Director Board is subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules, the Management cannot, in the circumstance, be said to be purely by a private body with no public duty. Relying on the principles laid down in the decision in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S. J.M.S. Trust v. V. R. Rudani AIR 1989 SC 1607 in Saraswathi Amma's case 1990 (2) KLT 755 it was held that a writ of mandamus can be issued to a Cooperative Bank, since the same was performing public duty and the service conditions of the employees are not of a private character. Since the '(a)' relief is against respondents 1 to 4 also and reliefs '(b) to (d)' are directed against respondents 2 to 4, the question whether mandamus can be issued against a Cooperative Society as such does not arise. 6. The Statutory rules contained in Chap.15 of the rules came into force on 1st January 1974. R.186 of the rules prescribes the qualification. The same reads as follows: "186. Qualifications. (1) No person shall be eligible for appointment in any post unless he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post as shown below: (i) All posts other than those requiring technical qualifications, the starting pay of which is Rs. 250 and above (A) A degree in commerce or Masters Degree in Arts of a recongnised University as special subject OR (B) (i) B.A, B.Sc, or B.Com. degree of a recognized University and (ii) Higher Diploma in Co-operation (H.D.C) or successful completion of the subordinate (Junior) Personnel Co-Operative Training Course (Junior Diploma in Co-operation) OR (C) Diploma in Rural Services with Co-operation as optional subject. OR (D) B.Sc. (Co-operation and banking) Degree of the Kerala Agricultural University. degree of a recognized University and (ii) Higher Diploma in Co-operation (H.D.C) or successful completion of the subordinate (Junior) Personnel Co-Operative Training Course (Junior Diploma in Co-operation) OR (C) Diploma in Rural Services with Co-operation as optional subject. OR (D) B.Sc. (Co-operation and banking) Degree of the Kerala Agricultural University. (ii) Other Supervisory and Ministerial posts other than those requiring technical qualifications, the starting pay of which is below Rs.250 S.S.L.C or its equivalent and successful completion of the Subordinate Personnel Co-operative Training Course (Junior Diploma in Co-operation) (iii) Tyoist S.S.L.C or its equivalent with typewriting (Lower) (iv) Stenographer S.S.L.C or its equivalent with typewriting and shorthand (Lower) (v) All posts with starting pay below Rs.100 Seventh Standard."� Therefore after 1st January 1974 for appointment one must possess the qualification prescribed under the said rule. Admittedly respondents 6 to 49 did not possess the qualification prescribed by the said rule for holding the post of Branch Manager and Executive Officer. The contention of these respondents is, though they did not possess the. qualification mentioned in R.186 of the rules, since they were having the qualification as per the rules applicable to them immediately before 1st January 1974 and were eligible for promotion, and the said right having been saved by R.200 of the rules, they are entitled to hold the respective posts. The method of appointment to the higher post is prescribed under R.185 of the Statutory rules. The same reads: "185. Promotions. (1) Appointments to higher categories of service in a Society shall ordinarily be made by promotion from among members eligible for appointment to such category in accordance with these rules on the basis of seniority in the feeder category. The feeder category for this purpose shall be prescribed by the society by framing suitable subsidiary regulations with the approval of the Registrar. (2) It shall be competent for the committee of a society to relax the qualifications of an employee, whether appointed before or after the commencement of these rules, for the purpose of promotion, in deserving cases, with the prior approval of the Registrar and for reasons to be recorded". Sub-r.(2) of R.185 of the rules was added by the notification G. O. Ms. No. 18/88/Cooperative, dated 17th June 1988 published in the gazette dated 17th June 1988. Sub-r.(2) of R.185 of the rules was added by the notification G. O. Ms. No. 18/88/Cooperative, dated 17th June 1988 published in the gazette dated 17th June 1988. The scope of the unamended R.185 and 200 came up for consideration in the decision in Narayanan Nair v. Kottayam District Cooperative Bank 1984 KLT 248 . In the said decision it was held that "on a combined reading of R.185, 186 and 200, it has to be held that the right to promotion to the higher posts of those already in service but not possessing the higher qualifications introduced under the rules, is preserved and protected; the protection is not confined to the emoluments of the posts they held at the time of the coming into force of the rules. We do not find any reason to restrict the right of such "promotion to the immediately higher posts." Then in Para.17 of the said decision it is stated: "17. Prayers (a) and (c) in O.P. No. 2630 of 1978 cannot be granted in the light of our above conclusion. The preparation of a correct seniority list of the various persons employed in the 1st respondent society is essential. The list has necessarily to be prepared in the light of the legal position we have indicated above. The 2nd respondent will ensure that the list prepared complies with the law as elucidated by us." When a similar matter arose, another Bench referred the matter to the Full Bench; the decision is Bhaskaran v. Additional Secretary 1987 (2) KLT 903 (F.B.). In para 20 of the decision while agreeing with the statement of law in Narayanan Nair's case 1984 KLT 248 that the right of promotion to the higher post of those already in service but not possessing the higher qualification introduced by the Statutory rules is preserved and protected, held the further statement that the right of promotion is not confined to immediately higher post is not acceptable. Ultimately in para 23 of the decision as to the scope of R.200 as it stood before the amendment, it is held: "We shall, therefore, summarise our conclusion on the interpretation and application or R.200 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, bearing in mind that the employees of the Cooperative Societies in service On 1st January 1974, "the existing employee's are the beneficiaries under this provision; (1) That all rights which the 'existing employee were entitled on or before 1st January 1974 are preserved. (2) As for privileges pre-existing privileges of emoluments alone are saved under the rule. (3) The existing employees are entitled to promotion to one higher post without reference to the qualification prescribed by the new rules, provided they were qualified under the old rules or bye laws. (4) If no qualification was fixed prior to 1st January 1974, promotion can be effected only in accordance with the qualification and condition provided under the new rules, after 1st January 1974 and (5) A plea for relaxation is only a claim of privilege and this privilege is not protected under R.200. This privilege ripens into a right only when it is granted. As this right is protected, relaxation granted before 1st January 1974 can be pressed into service relying on this rule. Relaxation of the qualification prescribed under the old bye law thus cannot be made after the new rule has come into force". From the said statement of law it is clear if the petitioners had the qualification for further promotion as per the existing rules, that right to promotion is protected and saved by R.200. On the other hand, if they did not possess the qualification as per the existing rules, since plea for relaxation is only a claim of privilege and since the same is not protected under R.200, the same cannot be exercised after 1st January 1974. In other words if as per the existing rules, respondents 6 to 49 are not qualified for promotion, they may not be entitled to further promotion after 1st January 1974 unless before the said date they had obtained relaxation of the qualification from the Registrar. As has already noted under Ext. P1 the Registrar can relax the qualification. It is contended that no such relaxation was obtained as per bye law 34 (1). 7. As has already noted under Ext. P1 the Registrar can relax the qualification. It is contended that no such relaxation was obtained as per bye law 34 (1). 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners since the rule applicable is the Service Rules of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank, as per which graduation is necessary for holding the post of Branch Manager and Executive Officer, relaxation was necessary if persons like respondents 6 to 49 are to be appointed by promotion to the post of Branch Manager or Executive Officer. The claim of the petitioners that the Rule applicable was the Service Rules of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank is challenged by the contesting respondents. According to them though the said rules were applicable, later from 29th May 1973 onwards the bank was following the Service Rules Ext. R5(c) formulated by the committee constituted by the Government for the said purpose and which was approved by the Director Board. But the regulation was not approved by the Registrar. It is the case of the petitioners that so long as the approval of the Registrar was not obtained, Ext. R5(c) Regulation cannot be treated as the rules that governed the service conditions of the employees. The petitioners relied on Ext. P6, a letter by the General Manager of the Kottayam District Cooperative Bank Ltd., wherein it is stated that from the formation of the bank on 1st September 1958 till 29th May 1973 the bank was following the Service Rules of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank; the same is obtained at page 62 of the paper book. It further states that since 29th May 1973 the bank was following Ext. R5(c) Rules. As per Ext. R5(c) graduation or S.S.L.C. with Cooperative Training is prescribed for Clerks and Cashiers. Regulation.7 mentions the staff pattern. Qualification is prescribed in Regulation.8 contained in Ext. R5(c). It is pointed out that, the appointment to the higher post is by promotion as per Ext. R5(c) and therefore they were entitled to promotion as per the said regulation to higher posts. So according to respondents 6 to 49 at the commencement of the Statutory Rules on 1st January 1974 they were entitled to hold the post of Branch Managers and Executive Officers. R5(c) and therefore they were entitled to promotion as per the said regulation to higher posts. So according to respondents 6 to 49 at the commencement of the Statutory Rules on 1st January 1974 they were entitled to hold the post of Branch Managers and Executive Officers. As per the Service Rules of the Cooperative Bank though the basic qualification for appointment as Clerk was E.S.L.C. for appointment as Accountant and Inspector, Degree of B.A. or B.Com. or B.Sc. of any recognised University, or a pass in Parts I and II of the Examinations conducted by the Indian Institute of Bankers, or Government, Diploma in Cooperation and Accountancy was necessary Respondents 6 to 49 do not possess the qualification mentioned therein. Therefore, if the rules applicable immediately before the coming into force of the Statutory Rules is the said rules, the said respondents are not entitled to be appointed as Branch Managers and Executive Officers, since they do not possess the said qualification. As has already noted, if they had such a right to promotion as per the rules then in existence immediately before the coming into force of the Statutory Rules on 1st January 1974, the said right is saved as per R.200 of the rules. The argument is, since the State Cooperative Bank Rules was the one applicable, if these respondents are to be appointed to the post of Branch Managers / Executive Officers, they should have had got relaxation as per bye law 34 (1) before the coming into force of the Statutory Rules on 1st January 1974. According to the petitioners, as no such relaxation was obtained by respondents 6 to 49, they are not entitled to hold the post of Branch Managers / Executive Officers. On the other hand as has noted the contention of the 5th respondent is, since it is Ext. R5(c) Rules that is applicable as per which they are qualified to hold the post of Branch Manager/Executive Officer, the said right is preserved under R.200 of the rules. 8. On behalf of the 5th respondent it was contended that 'Ext. P6 itself would show that Ext. R5(c) was forwarded to the Registrar, but approval was not obtained. According to the contesting respondents the approval in the circumstance is not mandatory as the same is only a procedural formality. 8. On behalf of the 5th respondent it was contended that 'Ext. P6 itself would show that Ext. R5(c) was forwarded to the Registrar, but approval was not obtained. According to the contesting respondents the approval in the circumstance is not mandatory as the same is only a procedural formality. They maintain, the failure to obtain approval cannot invalidate the action taken on the basis of the said regulation. This was hotly contested by the petitioners. Regulation.4 of Ext. R5(c) states that the regulation shall come into force from the date of approval by the Registrar. When Ext. R5(c) itself states that the same would come into force only from the date of approval by the Registrar, it cannot be argued that it should take effect on an earlier date. As admittedly that approval has not been secured by the 5th respondent, it cannot, in the circumstance be said that, the regulation applicable with respect to the service conditions the employees is Ext. R5(c). It is clear from Ext. P6 that the rules applicable was the Service Rules of the State Cooperative Bank. As has already noted, as per the said rules, respondents 6 to 49 are not qualified to hold the post of Branch Manager / Executive Officer. As held in the decision in Bhaskaran's case (2) since relaxation was not obtained before the coming into force of the Statutory rules on 1st January 1974, the same remains only as a privilege and hence is not saved under R.200 of the rules. 9. But after the decision in Bhaskaran's case 1987 (2) KLT 903 (FB) R.185 and 200 were amended and a new R.201 was added in 1988. The contention is, even if it was the Service Rules of the Cooperative Bank that was applicable before 1st January 1974 and as per the same a higher qualification was required, the promotions already made after 1st January 1974 and before 17th June 1988 is valid because of the deeming provision in R.201. 10. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners neither R.185(2) nor R.200 can have the effect of making the said appointment of persons who are not qualified valid and alternatively if the said amendments have 'such an effect, the same is invalid as discriminatory. 11. 10. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners neither R.185(2) nor R.200 can have the effect of making the said appointment of persons who are not qualified valid and alternatively if the said amendments have 'such an effect, the same is invalid as discriminatory. 11. R.185(2) gives the power to the Managing Committee of the Society to relax the qualification of an employee whether appointment before or after the commencement of the rules with prior approval of the Registrar and for reasons to be recorded. What is important to be noted is, the new sub-r.(2) gives the power to relax qualification irrespective of the question whether the employee was appointed before 1st January 1974 or after. In Bhaskaran's case 1987 (2) KLT 903 (FB) it is stated that relaxation of qualification prescribed under the old rules cannot be made after the new rules came into force. It is after that pronouncement sub-r.(2) was added to R.185 of the rules. What should be noted is, the said sub-rule does not state that relaxation should be obtained before 1st January 1974. The said sub-rule, therefore enables relaxation even after 1st January 1974 with respect to all employees irrespective of the question whether they were appointed before 1st" January 1974 or after. That would imply, even after 1st January 1974 relaxation can be obtained as provided in the said sub-rule. The legislative intent of the said sub-r.(2) has to be understood in the context of R.200 and 201 of the rules. R.200 and 201 of the rules reads: "200. Savings. Nothing in these rules as amended by the Kerala Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 1988 in G.O. (MS) No. 18/88/Coop, dated the 17th day of June, 1988 or any rules made thereunder shall operate to debar from enjoyment by any person or employee of any privilege of emoluments or any right except age of retirement, to which he is entitled by the term of any contract agreement or conditions of service subsisting between such person and a cooperative society as on the 1st January 1974. Nothing in these rules as amended by the Kerala Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 1988, in G.O. (MS) No. 18/88/Coop. Nothing in these rules as amended by the Kerala Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 1988, in G.O. (MS) No. 18/88/Coop. dated the 17th day of June, 1988 shall be interpreted as disqualification for promotion to any higher post, or posts to the employees in service of a Cooperative Society as on the 1st January, 1974, provided they possessed the qualifications, if any, prescribed in the bye laws or other Service Regulations, of such society. 201. Special provisions in respect of certain promotions. All promotions of employees, who were in service of any Cooperative Society before the commencement of the Kerala Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 1988 issued under G.O. (MS) No. 18/88/Coop. dated the 17th day of June 1988, made to any higher post or posts after the 1st day of January, 1974 and before the publication of the said rules in the Gazette shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with the provisions of R.185 and 200 as amended by the said rules". 12. In the decision in Bhaskaran's case 1987 (2) KLT 903 (FB), it was also held that persons who were not possessing the qualification . under the Statutory Rules, but who were having the qualification for promotion as per the existing rules would be entitled to promotion only to the next place as per R.200 of the rules. 13. The amendment to R.200 removed the limitation as to the right of promotion only to the next immediate higher post, promotion is now made possible to higher posts. As per R.201 of the rules promotions made after 1st January 1974 and before 17th June 1988 shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with R.185 and 200 of the rules as amended. Thus R.185, 200 and 201 are weaved into a pattern to produce the result of deeming promotions made between 1st January 1974 and 17th June 1988 valid. This clear legislative intention can be spelt out from a reading of the said rules together. Therefore, it may not be correct in the circumstance to read R.185(2) of the rules in isolation, but has to be read and understood in the context of R.200 and 201 of the rules. This clear legislative intention can be spelt out from a reading of the said rules together. Therefore, it may not be correct in the circumstance to read R.185(2) of the rules in isolation, but has to be read and understood in the context of R.200 and 201 of the rules. As has already noted when relaxation of qualification is possible even after 1st January 1974 by virtue of R.185(2), R.201 says that if such promotions were made between 1st January 1974 and 17th June 1988, such promotions should be deemed to have been made in accordance with R.185 and 200 as amended. So it has to be assumed, such promotions made between 1st January 1974 and 17th June 1988 were after obtaining the relaxation under R.185(2) of the rules also. When the law says that something has to be deemed to have been done, it has to be given the full effect and should be carried to the logical conclusion. All that the court has to find out is for what purpose the said fiction is created and between which person such fiction is to be applied. Para.56 and 57 of the decision in American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Labs Put. Ltd. 1986 (1) SCC 465 refer to the statement of law by Lord Asquith with approval; it is stated : "56. In a celebrated passage Lord Asquith of Bishopstone in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council said (at page 132): If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. 57. In the State of Bombay v. Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalkar this Court held (at page 778) while approving the above passage of Lord Asquith: When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done, which in fact and truth was not done, the court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to and full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion". 14. 14. Thus the promotions made between the aforesaid dates have to be deemed to be valid by virtue of the amended R.185 ,200 and 201. In the decision in Writ Appeal No. 388 of 1991 the scope of the amended R.185, 200 and 201 did not arise for consideration. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. As has already noted, alternate contention of the petitioners is, if the amended R.185, 200 and 201 have the said effect, the same is invalid as it is discriminatory. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that certain promotions were made in violation of Ext. P25 order passed in Arbitration Reference No. 17/1978- The contention of the petitioners is that the amendments are incompetent as it would have the effect of reversing the decision in Ext. P3. 15. The beneficiaries of this amendment is an identifiable class; a vanishing class. As has noted, they were promoted on the basis of Ext. R5(c) which was discovered to be not a valid regulation because the approval of the Registrar was not obtained. It was in the context of interpretation given by this court in Bhaskaran's case 1987 (2) KLT 903 (F.B.) to the unamended R.185 and 200 of the rules these amendments were made. Classification is permissible if the same is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes them from others, and the said differentia has rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the said amendments. As noted, the classification is based on intelligible differentia; and the classification has relation with the object to be achieved, that is to preserve the promotions of a class who came into service long ago and who were victims of uncertainty as to the rules governing their service conditions. Therefore, on the ground of discrimination the said amendment cannot be held to be invalid. In Ext. P3 decision all that is said is to prepare the list in accordance with the interpretation given in the said decision. The legislative power can be exercised for taking away the basis of the decision though such legislative power cannot be used for reversing the decision. Here, the basis of the decision is the unamended R.185 and 200 of the rules. That basis is sought to be changed by legislative exercise. That is a valid exercise of the legislative power. The legislative power can be exercised for taking away the basis of the decision though such legislative power cannot be used for reversing the decision. Here, the basis of the decision is the unamended R.185 and 200 of the rules. That basis is sought to be changed by legislative exercise. That is a valid exercise of the legislative power. Ext. P25 purported to prohibit the 5th respondent from making promotion relaxing the qualification as per R.185 of the rules without prior approval of the Registrar under R.185(2) of the rules. Ext. P25 did not prevent promotion after relaxing the rules with the approval of the Registrar. In other words promotion after relaxation with the approval of Registrar is not affected by Ext. P25. Such relaxation and approval are deemed by virtue of R.201 of the rules. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that Ext. P25 can affect the validity of the amendments in question. The competence of the rule making authority to amend the rules cannot be held to have been in any way affected by Ext. P25. In such circumstance, the said argument of the petitioners that the amendment are incompetent and are discriminatory cannot be sustained. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The Original Petition is liable to be dismissed, which accordingly is hereby dismissed.