JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to quash a part of the Ordinance 299-V-3-d incorporated vide Notification No. 8 by which the condition of passing B.Sc. Ist year has been incorporated for the year 1993-94 and 1994-95. It has been prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioners and like others for admission in B.Sc. Nursing Part III Course for the academic session 1993-94 or 1994-95 irrespective of their not being possessed of B.Sc. 1st Year. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioners are that they possess qualification as has been shown in Schedule A and they were given admission in G.N.M. Nursing Course. After successfully completing the same they are working as G.N.M. It is alleged that in the B.Sc. Nursing Part-III, 26 seats are reserved for inservice candidates and according to the earlier Ordinance 299-V-3-d, in the eligibility conditions, one of the condition for admission in B.Sc. Nursing Part III Course was only Higher Secondary upto 1984-85, it was not necessary for a candidate to possess qualification of First Year Science Examination of Three Year Degree Course but vide Notification No.8 dated 23.11.1993, the same been incorporated in the requisite qualifications which has resulted in depriving admission to the inservice candidates like the petitioners in the B.Sc. Nursing Part-III Course. Hence, this writ petition. 3. This writ petition has been filed on 27.7.94. Notice to show cause was issued on 1.8.1994. In pursuance of the notice, Mr. Anil Kumar Singh has put in appearance on behalf of the non-petitioners and filed reply. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. Mr. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the amended Ordinance 299-V-3-d is illegal and arbitrary as it is made effective retrospectively depriving the petitioners and like others of their vested right of consideration for admission of B.Sc. Nursing Part III in academic session 1993-94. He has also contended that there is no rationality in prescribing B.Sc. 1st Year T.D.C. qualification for admission to B.Sc. Nursing Part III and the same is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Nursing Part III in academic session 1993-94. He has also contended that there is no rationality in prescribing B.Sc. 1st Year T.D.C. qualification for admission to B.Sc. Nursing Part III and the same is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has relied upon Deepak Sibal v.Punjab University, AIR 1989 S.C. 903 , Atal Kumar Jain v.University of Rajasthan, 1988 (1) R.L.R. 811 , T.R. Kapur v.State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC-415 and also on the decision of their lordhips of the Supreme Court rendered in K. Jagadeesan v.Union of India, AIR 1990 SC-1072 . 5. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has submitted that the two courses are separate one and not related to the petitioners' right of promotion. He has submitted that the petitioners cannot claim any vested right to be considered for admission as the impugned notification has come into operation w.e.f. 28.11.93. He has also urged that the amended provision has not been made retrospective in operation as the vacancies have been advertised on 27.6.1994. Mr. Singh has contended that the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited at the Bar. 7. In T.R. Kapur v.State of Haryana , their lordships have observed that it is well settled that the power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with a retrospective effect. It is equally 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 that an authority competent to lay down qualifications or 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 right. 8. 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 right. 8. In K. Jagadeesan v.Union of India , their lordships after considering the T.R. Kapur's case (supra) and other various decisions has observed as under:- "In our opinion, no retrospective effect has been given to the said amended rule. It is not argued that the appellant has been reverted from the post which he occupies on the ground of any lack of any qualification. The only effect is that his chances of pormotion or his right to be considered for promotion to the higher post is adversely affected. This cannot be regarded as retrospective effect being given to the amendment of the rules carried out by the impugned Notification and the challenge to the said Notification on that ground must fail. Their lordships have further observed as under:- "It is for the Government to decide what qualification was required for the promotion to the post of Director (M.E.) and unless that requirement was totally irrelevant or unreasonable, it could not be said to be bad in law. In this regard, we agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Tribunal." 9. The law laid down in the aforesaid decisions has not been disputed by the counsel for the parties. Now, it is to be seen whether the ratio of the said cases applies to the case in hand or not. 10. In this regard, we agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Tribunal." 9. The law laid down in the aforesaid decisions has not been disputed by the counsel for the parties. Now, it is to be seen whether the ratio of the said cases applies to the case in hand or not. 10. The amended Ordinance No. 299-V-3-(d) has been made effective w.e.f. 23.11.1993 and the relevant part of the said Ordinance reads as under:- "(d) A candidate who after passing the general Nursing Course and registered Nurse with a recognised body (State Nursing Council) having a minimum of five years regular nursing experience on the last date of receiving of application and passed the First Year Science Examination of Three Year Degre Course (Pass/Honours) of the University or an examination recognised by the University as equivalent thereto in all the compulsory subjects and the optional subjects of medical group (Physics, Chemistry and Sociology) subject with a minimum of 45% marks (40% for natural born scheduled caste and schedule tribe candidates) in the aggregate of English and Science subject (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) taken together at the qualifying examination is also eligible for admission to B.Sc. (Nursing Part III Examination on producing N.O.C. from State Government. Their merit will be calculated on the basis of marks (obtained in General Nursing (final) Year Exam. together with Bonus marks of one of every 2 years of completed services in Nursing exceeding than five years of minimum regular Nursing Services upto last 11/2 years of his last service provided such candidates have not completed age above 40 years on or before 31st December of the year of his admission." 11. A careful reading of the aforesaid Ordinance makes it clear that by the said Notification No. 8 dated 23.11.1993 the requisite qualification has been made to B.Sc. First Year with Science/Biology, and training in General Nursing with 5 years experience on the post of Nurse whereas the requisite qualification for admission to B.Sc. Nursing Part III was G.N.M. with five years experience. It is no doubt true that by the impugned Notification No. 8 a change has been brought about in the requisite qualifications of B.Sc. First Year with Science/Biology, and training in General Nursing with 5 years experience on the post of Nurse whereas the requisite qualification for admission to B.Sc. Nursing Part III was G.N.M. with five years experience. It is no doubt true that by the impugned Notification No. 8 a change has been brought about in the requisite qualifications of B.Sc. Nursing Part III for in service candidates but having given out utmost consideration, we do not find that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or the same can be declared illegal on the ground of retrospective operation or it takes away any vested right of the petitioners. 12. Admittedly, the impugned Notification No.8 has been published on 28.11.1993 whereas the vacancies have been advertised on 17.6.1994. The respondents in their reply have specifically denied the case of the petitioner that the advertisement is of the academic session of 1993-94 but according to the respondents the same is of the academic session 1994-95. The petitioners have not assailed the same by filing any counter. Therefore, the argument that as the reserved seats of two years are clubbed it has caused difficulty to the petitioners have no legs to stand in the absence of any denial and being a question of fact cannot be considered. Reference may be made to a decision reported in. Thus, it cannot be said that by introduction of amended provision, the petitioners' vested right has been taken away and the question of implementing this amended Ordinance with retrospective effect does not arise. Moreso, the course of General Nursing is a different course and the job opportunities with the General Nursing Course are different with that of B.Sc. Nursing Part III and both these courses are different. B.Sc. Nursing Course is a degree certificate wherein General Nursing candidates are given an edge over other applicants through providing them direct admission into part III of the B.Sc. Nursing Course and in addition to the other qualifications, one more qualification of Ist Year Science Three year Degree Course has been added. The petitioner has not placed any material except Schedule 'B' (mentioning position of each petitioner without any material). Nursing Course and in addition to the other qualifications, one more qualification of Ist Year Science Three year Degree Course has been added. The petitioner has not placed any material except Schedule 'B' (mentioning position of each petitioner without any material). A perusal of the Schedule B reveals that for G.N.M. Course which the petitioners have passed in the year 1984/1985, the minimum qualification was Higher Secondary, then in the year 1986 1st Year T.D.C. with any subject, and in the year 1987 & 1988 there was no batch. In the year 1989, the minimum qualification was prescribed as B.Sc. Part I (No Group) then in the year 1990 the minimum qualification has been prescribed as B.Sc. Part I with Medical Group. Meaning thereby since 1989 the minimum qualification even for General Nursing Course is B.Sc. Part I, therefore, there is no ground to delete the condition in B.Sc. Nursing Course Part III as stated above being separate courses. 13. So far as the argument that no weightage has been given to B.Sc. holder is concerned, the same has no substance as the petitioners are not B.Sc. and when they are not B.Sc. they cannot challenge the same. That apart it depends upon the authority concerned to give weightage or not. The petitioners have not said anything in the writ petition that their promotional avenues are going to be affected on account of this amendment. Therefore, it cannot be said that any vested right has been taken away. The only reason shown for declaring a part of the amended Ordinance violative of Article 14 is that they will not be given admission, which is no reason as it is for the authorities to prescribe qualification and this Court does not interfere unless the same is shown to be irrational or violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution, which is not shown in the case in hand. Thus, the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that a part of the Ordinance 299-V-3-d challenged by way of this petition, cannot be declared as ultra vires and we are not inclined to interefere under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that a part of the Ordinance 299-V-3-d challenged by way of this petition, cannot be declared as ultra vires and we are not inclined to interefere under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. Consequently, the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******