Judgment :- K. Narayana Kurup, J. The prayer in this original petition is for the issuance of the writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P.10 letter of the first respondent and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to transfer the petitioner from the post of Asst. Commandant in the Armed Reserve to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, General Executive with effect from the date of giving his willingness on 29.7.1991. 2. The petitioner, a graduate was appointed by direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, District Armed Reserve through the Kerala Public Service Commission. He was promoted as Reserve Inspector of Police on 3.2.1987 and as Assistant Commandant of Police on 24.9.1991. Now, the petitioner is working as Asst. Commandant, Armed Reserve, Ernakulam Rural, and Kalamassery. 3. The first respondent, State of Kerala, issued Ext. P1 G.O. dated 19.7.1962 providing for the transfer of personnel from District Armed Reserve and Armed Police Battalion to the Local Police as Deputy Superintendents of Police after consultation with the third respondent Kerala Public Service Commission. The Commission has granted its concurrence to the orders already issued and to the proposal to make provision for the transfer of Asst. Commandants as Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Local Police, subject to the condition that the Commission should be consulted regarding the transfer of Sub Inspectors, Inspectors of the Armed Reserve and Armed Police Battalions to the Local Police and vice versa and for the transfer of Asst. Commandants of the District Armed Reserve and Armed Police Battalions to the Local Police as Deputy superintendents of Police. Clause (d) of Ext. P1 provided that not more than one out of every eight vacancies in the category of Deputy Superintendent in the Local Police shall be reserved to be filled in by transfer from among the Asst. Commandants. The Govt. framed Ext. P2 Special Rules for Kerala Police Service in exercise of the powers 'conferred under Art.309 of the Constitution of India. Category I of 'Branch I General' under R.2 of Ext. P2 deals with method of appointment of Deputy Superintendents of Police including Vice-Principal of the Police Training College. The method of appointment is by direct recruitment or by promotion from among Circle Inspectors or by appointment from among the Asst. Commandants and so on. Category I of 'Branch I General' under R.2 of Ext. P2 deals with method of appointment of Deputy Superintendents of Police including Vice-Principal of the Police Training College. The method of appointment is by direct recruitment or by promotion from among Circle Inspectors or by appointment from among the Asst. Commandants and so on. Note to R.2 dealing with appointment provides as follows: "In making appointments under (c) above, only officers who are not above the age of 45 years on the 1st day of January of the year in which selection is to be made will be considered. Such appointments shall be made in consultation with the Public Service Commission". In pursuance to Exts. P1 and P2 the second respondent issued Ext. P3 letter dt. 29.7.1991 seeking willingnes of Asst. Commandants who are below 45 years of age to be transferred and posted as Deputy Superintendents of Police in General Executive Branch. The petitioner submitted Ext. P4 willingness dt. 29.7.1991. By Ext. P5 letter dt. 29.10.1991 of the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur addressed to the second respondent the former forwarded Ext. P4 willingness of the petitioner to the second respondent. Since nothing transpired in spite of Ext. P4 willingness and Ext. P5 letter forwarding Ext. P4 to the second respondent the petitioner submitted Exts. P6, P8 and P9 representations to the first respondent but without any avail. Hence, this original petition was filed originally for the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to transfer the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, General Executive Branch with effect from the date of giving his willingness, i.e., 29.7.1991. As per order in CMP No. 26674/94 dt. 7.7.1995 this court directed the first respondent to consider Ext. P9 representation preferred by the petitioner and pass order> thereon within a period of one month and in compliance with the said direction the first respondent passed Ext. P10 which was produced along with CMP No. 23050/95 to amend the Original Petition adding prayer (aa) to quash Ext. P10. In Ext. P10, it is stated as follows: "Government have examined your request for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police in General Executive contained in the representation cited in detail. Government have already decided to delete the provisions regarding transfer of Asst. P10. In Ext. P10, it is stated as follows: "Government have examined your request for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police in General Executive contained in the representation cited in detail. Government have already decided to delete the provisions regarding transfer of Asst. Commandants from AR, AP Battalions to General Executive as Deputy Superintendents of Police and the matter has been referred to Kerala Public Service Commission for concurrence. Hence, if your request is allowed it will be against the decision of Government already taken. Your representation cited (Ext. P9 in O.P. 15214/94) is therefore rejected". The second respondent has filed a statement in which the stand taken is that in view of his proposal to Government to delete the provisions of the special rules providing for transfer of Asst. Commandants of Armed Police battalions/ district Armed Reserves to General Executive Branch and the proposal was forwarded to the Government and the same is now under the active consideration of Government, the petitioner is not eligible for transfer as Deputy Superintendent in the General Executive Branch. The First respondent has not filed a counter affidavit. 4. Having heard counsel on both sides, I am not satisfied that the stand taken by the second respondent can be legally sustained. As per Ext. P2 Special Rules framed under Art.309 of the Constitution of India the post of Dy. S. P. is to be filled up by direct recruitment or by promotion from among Circle Inspectors or by appointment by transfer from among Asst. Commandants, District Armed Reserve and so on. By Ext. P1, the Government has fixed a ratio of 8:1 for appointment to the post of Dy. S. P. between Circle Inspector of Police in the General Executive Branch and Asst. Commandants in District Armed Reserve. As per Ext. P3, the Government has sought the willingness of the Asst. Commandants in the Armed Reserve below the age of 45 years for appointment as Dy.S.P. in General Executive Branch and the petitioner has expressed his willingness for transfer through Ext. P4 letter dt. 29.7.1991 which was forwarded to the second respondent as per Ext. P5 dt. 29.10.1991. Since the petitioner is eligible to be transferred as Dy. S. P. as per the existing Rules and orders, viz. Exts. P1 and P2 (Ext. P4 letter dt. 29.7.1991 which was forwarded to the second respondent as per Ext. P5 dt. 29.10.1991. Since the petitioner is eligible to be transferred as Dy. S. P. as per the existing Rules and orders, viz. Exts. P1 and P2 (Ext. P2 is a rule issued under Art.309 of the Constitution of India) and is is below the age of 45 years, I do not find any reason why the petitioner's case for appointment by transfer as Dy.S.P. in the General Executive Branch shall not be considered by the Respondents by applying the existing orders and Rules, namely, Exts. P1 and P2 as already noted. Going by the existing rules and orders the petitioner has a legitimate expectation of being considered for appointment by transfer as Dy. S. P. and such expectation is not liable to be defeated by the State without some overriding reason of public policy justifying its doing so. No such policy was brought to my notice either in the statement filed by the second respondent or at the time of hearing. Pankajakshan v. State (Narayana Kurup J.) 5. It is nobody's case that the rules in question are not in existence even as on today. All that is stated in Ext. P10 is that the 2nd respondent has forwarded a proposal to the first respondent, State of Kerala to delete the provisions providing for appointment by transfer from the Armed Reserve to the General Executive Branch. I do not find any warrant for such a proposal as appointment by transfer in the same service or from the different cadre or service but equal in rank and status is very common concept in service jurisprudence. Moreover, the proposal is still on the embryonic state which has not seen in the light of the day. The first respondent will not be justified in denying the petitioner his right of being considered for appointment by transfer to the General Executive Branch based on a mere proposal made by the second respondent which has not been acted upon by the first respondent by actually deleting the provisions and framing a new rule. A mere proposal for amendment of the rule will not have the effect of suspending or keeping in abeyance the operation of the existing validities. A mere proposal for amendment of the rule will not have the effect of suspending or keeping in abeyance the operation of the existing validities. Statutory/ Constitutional rules conferring vested rights cannot be emasculated by indefinite postponement and procrastination of appointments under such rules which are in existence in contemplation of further amendments to the rules altering the method of appointment. The respondents are bound to act in accordance with Ext. P1 and P2 orders and rules and at any rate they cannot fiddle with them as they please to the detriment of the petitioner and personnel similarly situated. The respondents have no case that there are no vacancies in the post of Dy. S. P. in the General Executive Branch and according to the petitioner, five Circle Inspectors were promoted as Dy. S. Ps. as on the date of the filing of this original petition and further promotion is on the way and in fact, further promotions were also made and the petitioner and persons similarly situated have been singed out for hostile discrimination by depriving them of the benefit of the rules which are in force. In this view, the stand taken in Ext. P10 cannot be legally sustained. 6. all these apart, the proposed amendment cannot have retrospective operation as rules barring exceptional case operate only prospectively. Even where the statute permits framing of rules with retrospective effect, the exercise of power must not operate discriminately or in violation of any constitutional right so as to affect vested right. The rule making authority should not be permitted normally to act in the past. Here, the proposed amendment if allowed to operate retrospectively, will act viciously against the petitioner who has aright of being considered for appointment under the existing rules. In this view also, the petitioner has to succeed in this original petition. In the result, I quash Ext. P10 and direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as Dy. S. P. in the Genera! Executive Branch by transfer as per Exts. P1 and P2 and pass appropriate orders consistent with this opinion within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Original Petition is allowed as above.