I have heard Mr. G. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner is the Mizoram High School Teachers Association registered under the Societies Registration Act. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Association represented by its General Secretary by a resolution passed by the Executive Committee in the meeting held on 7.6.99. 3. The members of the petitioner Association have been working as teachers/ Headmasters in the deficit High Schools in Mizoram. The Mizoram Middle Schools and High Schools (Provincialisation) Rules, 1991 vide notification dated 23.1.1991 (Annexure PI) was published in the Official Gazette on 8.2.1991. Under these Rules, 74 Deficit Schools were provincialised and teaching and non-teaching staff numbering 643 working in these schools were absorbed into Govt service with effect from 1.12.91 in the appropriate scales of pay as admissible to such staff working in the Govt High Schools by an order dated 30.4.92 (Annexure P2). 4. By another order dated 29.7.1992 (Annexure P3) 16 Senior Teachers/ Assistant Headmasters in different Government High Schools were promoted to the post of Headmasters. By the same order the Govt appointed 44 "Headmasters of provincialised High Schools as Headmasters of the Government High Schools" placing their seniority below the above mentioned 16 promotees. It is alleged in para 7 and 8 of the writ petition that the seniority as aforesaid had been fixed arbitrarily without any basis and against the interest of the members of the petitioner Association and that their seniority should have been counted from 1.12.91, ie the date of provincialisation counting their past service to the extent of one year for every three years subject to maximum of five years as per Rule 5 (ii) of the Provincialisation Rules of 1991 vide notification dated 23.1.91 (Annexure PI) published in Official Gazette on 8.2.91. But these Rules were repealed and replaced by Mizoram Middle Schools and High Schools (Provin­cialisation) Rules, 1991 vide notification dated 24.9.91 (Annexure P4) published in the Official Gazette on 29.7.92 bringing these Rules into force from the said date ie 29.7.92. Since the above mentioned order (Annexure P3) was issued on 29.7.92 there is no question of fixation of seniority according to the former Rules. Since the above mentioned order (Annexure P3) was issued on 29.7.92 there is no question of fixation of seniority according to the former Rules. Later Rules also have been repealed and replaced by Mizoram Middle Schools / and High Schools (Provincialisation) Rules, 1994 vide notification dated 10.10.94 (Annexure P6) published in the Official Gazette on 11.10.94 giving retrospective effect from 8.10.91 vide Rule 1 (c) thereof the Rule 11 (b) provides : “Notwithstanding such repeal, any action taken or done in; good faith under the Rules so repealed shall be construed as validly taken or done under the corresponding provisions of these Rules”. 5. Hence, absorption of the teaching and non-teaching staff numbering 643 working in the 74 provincialised schools into Govt service with effect from 1.12.91 vide order dated 13.4.92 (Annexure P2) shall have to be construed as validly done under Rule 6 of the 1994 Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 6 reads as under: “All existing incumbents of the provincialised school in which they were serving on the effective date, shall be absorbed in the Govt service in suitable ranks or grades with effect from the said date, subject to their suitability for appointment in Govt service in consonance with the corresponding and relevant Recruitment Rules framed by the Department concerned and in force on the effective date, as may be determined by the competent Departmental Promotion Committee constituted for various categories of Govt employees by the Govt of Mizoram and subject to the availability of sanctioned posts for such provincialised schools: Provided that 50 per cent of the posts of Headmaster shall be filled in by absorption of existing incumbents of the post of Headmaster of the provincialised schools, and remaining 50 per cent of the posts of Headmaster shall be filled in by promotion of the eligible teachers of the Govt High/Middle Schools as the case may be in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force on the effective date : Provided further that the existing Headmasters of the provincialised schools shall not be eligible to be so absorbed unless they have already put in at least 5 (five) years teaching experience in any recognised school or schools : Provided also that the teaching and the non-teaching staff of the provincialised schools so absorbed shall not be subjected to the upper age limit prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules.” 6. It is alleged in para 14,15 and 16 that by giving retrospective effect to the 1994 Rules, respondent Government have attempted to unsettle everything that has been done under the earlier Rules and to deny the members of the petitioners Association their legitimate dues by virtue of rights they have already acquired under the old Rules. It is urged that the new Rules have done away that the provisions for counting past service rendered in the respective schools before provincialisation providing that the inter-se seniority shall be such as may be determined by the Govt from time to time vide Rule 7 (b) of the new Rules. 7. It is stated in para 17 of the writ petition that ever since the new Rules were published the respondent Government have gone ahead with the issue of series of notifications and office memorandum (Annexures P7 to P11) regarding e the absorption/promotion/inter-se seniority of the members of the petitioner Association vis-a-vis their counterparts in the Govt High Schools and that the provisional inter-se seniority published by the respondent Govt on 6.6.96 (Annexure P8) and 10.8.98 (Annexure P9) are arbitrary inasmuch as their seniority should have been fixed on the basis of the date of provincialisation and should not be counted from 29.7.92 as done in the list published on 6.6.96 (Annexure P8). I have, however, found this list published on 6.6.96 (Annexure P8) stood superseded by the list published on 18.8.98 (Annexure P9). The petitioner Association has further submitted that it is not at all clear as to what was the basis on which seniority was counted from 29.7.92 in the list published on 6.6.96 (Annexure P8). This submission overlooks the fact that Annexure P8 is the seniority list of Headmasters, and 19.1.91 was the date of their promotion/appointment to the post of Headmaster vide order dated 29.7.92 (Annexure P3). 8. It is submitted in para 19 of the writ petition that the notification dated 21.10.98 (Annexure P10) is illegal and arbitrary as it is based on the aforesaid defective inter-se seniority list and that if the seniority list was properly prepared as per the provisions of the 1991 Rules many of the members of the petitioner Association would have become senior to those who have already been put in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Principals of the newly established Higher Secondary Schools by relaxing seniority rules. The respondents reply is that there is no question of preparing seniority list as per provisions of 1991 Rules which stood repealed and replaced by new Rules of 1994 with retrospective effect from 8.10.91. That apart, the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State-respondents reveals that even before the filing of this writ petition on 22.7.1999, the notification dated 21.10.1998 (Annexure PI0) was kept in abeyance by an order dated 17.5.99 (Annexure B9 to the affidavit-in-opposition). 9. It is, however, contended that the 1994 Rules as well as action initiated and orders/notifications issued under the said Rules are violative of fundamental rights of the members of the petitioner Association, and therefore the petitioner Association filed this writ petition praying for issuance of an appropriate writ “Directing the respondents to prepare the inter-se seniority list of the members of the petitioner Association in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 Provincialisation Rules and why the impugned provisions of the 1994 Provincialisation Rules should not be struck down as being illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of India and give all the benefits which have accrued to the petitioners under the provisions of the 1991 Rules and declare that the retrospective enforcement of the 1994 Provincialisation Rules is illegal and arbitrary and to extend the benefits of the Mizoram Aided Schools Employees (Death-cum Retirement Gratuity) Rules, 1990 to the members of the petitioner Association including those members who have either died or already retired from service after 1990 with all other consequential benefits like seniority, promotion, arrear pay and allowances, if due etc.” 10. Let us take the last prayer first. It is conceded in para 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State-respondents that - “It is correct to state that the Mizoram Aided Schools Employees (Death-cum Retirement Gratuity) Rules, 1990 has not been implemented till now ... Financial constraints came in the way of implementing the same. However, the Department is making all efforts to allocate Rs.14,00,000 for the scheme, if necessary, by diverting funds from other sources.” 11. In view of the above, the State-respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the above Rules to the members of the petitioner Association within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this order. 12. The petitioner Association prays for a direction that the retrospective enforcement of the 1994 Rules is illegal. In view of the above, the State-respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the above Rules to the members of the petitioner Association within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this order. 12. The petitioner Association prays for a direction that the retrospective enforcement of the 1994 Rules is illegal. Section 1 (c) of these Rules published in the Official Gazette on 11.10.94 provides that these Rules "shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 8.10.91." It is true that subordinate legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the statute expressly or by necessary application confers such power upon the rule making authority (AIR 1963 SG 274). This limitation, however, does not apply where rule making power is conferred upon the authority by the Constitution itself. In BS Vadera vs. Union of India & others reported in AIR 1969 SC 118 it has been held,“It is also significant to note that the proviso to Article 309, clearly lays down that any Rules so made shall have effect, subject to the provisions of any such Act.... in the absence of any Act, of the appropriate Legislature, on the matter, in our opinion, the Rules, made by the President, or by such person as he may direct, are to have full effect, both prospectively and retrospectively. The Mysore Court, in the decisions, Govindaraju vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 Mysore 265 and Gavindappa vs. LIC of Registration, AIR 1965 Mysore 25, has taken the view that it is not open to the Governor, under the proviso to Article 309 to frame rule, having retrospective effect. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, on the other hand in Ram Autar vs. State of UP, AIR 1962 Allahabad 328 (FB) has taken a view contrary to the one, expressed by the Mysore High Court. We are of opinion that the latter represents the correct view.” 13. The 1994 Rules regarding the conditions of service of the teachers/ Headmasters of the provincialised schools absorbed into Government service with effect from the date of provincialisation have been made by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Such Rules can be given retrospective effect by an express enactment therein. Rule 1 (c) is the express enactment in the instant case. Such Rules can be given retrospective effect by an express enactment therein. Rule 1 (c) is the express enactment in the instant case. It is settled law that such Rules, even if they take away or impair existing rights, can be given retrospective effect with express enactment or necessary intendment to that effect. In NT Bevin Katti vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission reported in AIR 1990 SC 1233 it has been held that, “If the Recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules ....a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertise­ment, he does acquire a vested right for being considered for selection in accordance e with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended Rules are retrospective in nature.” (emphasis supplied) 14. In the instant case, the 1994 Rules having been given retrospective effect expressly by Rule 1 (c), which cannot be declared illegal as prayed for, in view of what has been stated above, the members of the petitioner Association cannot be said to continue to have what ever rights they have acquired under the repealed Rules not given under the new Rules of 1994. The respondents, therefore, cannot be directed to prepare inter-se seniority list of the members of the petitioner Association in accordance with the repealed 1991 Rules and to give them the benefits of the said Rules as prayed for. 15. Now, only one relief, ie, the prayer for declaring the impugned provisions of 1994 Provincialisation Rules as ultra vires is left to be dealt with. The 1994 Rules in its entirety has not been challenged. The following are the provisions of the 1994 Rules impugned in this writ petition : 1. Rule 1 (c) giving the Rules retrospective effect is challenged in para 20 of the writ petition. 2. Rule 7 (b) providing for fixation of seniority is challenged in para 17 of the writ petition. 3. The following are the provisions of the 1994 Rules impugned in this writ petition : 1. Rule 1 (c) giving the Rules retrospective effect is challenged in para 20 of the writ petition. 2. Rule 7 (b) providing for fixation of seniority is challenged in para 17 of the writ petition. 3. Rule 8 barring institution of suits or other legal proceedings without previous sanction of the State Government is challenged in para 19 of the writ petition. 16. I have already confirmed the validity of the Rule 1 (c) vide discussion in the preceding paragraphs. 17. As regards Rule 8, Mr. G. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner Association, has minced no word to say that this offensive provisions is rather draconian in nature and that such a provision which denies a person's right to approach a Court of law for enforcement of his constitutional and legal rights is against all doctrines of the rule of law. Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General, however, submits that this provision does not contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution and in fact is a substantial reproduction of the instruction (Annexure 10 to the affidavit-in-opposition) of Government of India's decision No.9 (a) of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which says, “Government servants seeking redress of their grievances arising out of their employment or conditions of service should in their interest and also consistently with official channels propriety and discipline, first exhaust the normal official channels of redress before taking the issue to a Court of law.” 18. A mere look at the above instruction would show that it does not impose a ban against Govt servants approaching the Court, but only requires them to exhaust first the normal channels of redress before taking the issue to a Court of law. As regards exclusion of jurisdiction of Courts, it may not be out of place to mention that the jurisdiction of Courts shall continue as regards the State Public Service so long as an Administrative Tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction in service matters for a particular State has not been established. It is one thing to say that no suit shall be instituted against the Government until the expiration of two months next after service of notice under section 80 CPC on the Government, and it is. It is one thing to say that no suit shall be instituted against the Government until the expiration of two months next after service of notice under section 80 CPC on the Government, and it is. quite another thing to say that except with previous sanction of the Government no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie for anything done in good faith under the Rules, vide Rule 8. A rule which prohibits Government servants from having recourse to Court of law without previous sanction of the Government would be unconstitutional ( AIR 1962 SC 1172 ). In view of the above, Rule 8 of the 1994 Rules is declared ultra vires the Constitution and is struck down. 19. Rule 7 (b) has been challenged on the ground that it gives absolute power to the State-respondents without any guiding principles to fix inter-se seniority of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the provincialised schools according to their whims and fancy. In para 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State-respondents, it is denied that the 1994 Rules confer unguided or unbridled powers to the Government for fixing inter-se seniority of the members of petitioner Association. In this regard, Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General refers to a decision reported in (1998) 7 SCC 353 . In that case one of the points for determination was whether Transport Commissioners power to h extend a town-service route more than 8 KM beyond the'limits of the municipality or town is unlimited. The Apex Court held, “It is certainly erroneous to think that the power of the Transport Commissioner is unlimited. If that is so, the very purpose of the rule providing for a limit of 8 kilometers of extension beyond the limits of the municipality or town will be defeated. In other words, mufassal service cannot be labelled as town service by virtue of the permission granted by the Transport Commissioner though in fact it would be a mufassal service. Apart from the above guidelines, the Transport Commissioner must also bear in mind that in the case of a route covered by a notified scheme, grant of permits to any other person is barred except to the extent permitted by the scheme.” 20. Apart from the above guidelines, the Transport Commissioner must also bear in mind that in the case of a route covered by a notified scheme, grant of permits to any other person is barred except to the extent permitted by the scheme.” 20. The above decision is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in the instant case Rule 7 (b) gives absolute and unlimited power to the State Government to fix inter-se seniority without any guidelines whatsoever. Here the main problem is one of determining seniority of teachers/Headmasters of provincialised schools vis-a-vis their counter parts in Government schools and also among themselves serving in different schools in different districts appointed by different authorities. In this regard, there is no guidelines under Rule 7 (b) or under any other Rules of the 1994 Rules. Rule 7 (b) reads.: “The inter-se seniority of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the provin­cialised schools shall be such as may be determined by the Govt from time to time.” 21. In M/s Devi Das Gopal Krishnan vs. State of Punjab & others reported in AIR 1967 SC1825, it has been observed : “Under section 5 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, as it originally stood, an uncontrolled power was conferred on the provincial Government to levy every year on the taxable turnover of a dealer a tax at such rates as the said Government might direct. Under that section the Legislature practically effaced itself in matter of fixation of rates and it did not give any guidance either under that section or under any other provisions of the Act.” 22. In Hamdard Dawakhana & another vs. Union of India & others reported in AIR 1960 SC 5.54 (568), the Apex Court held : The question for decision then is, is the delegation constitutional in that the administrative authority has been supplied with proper guidance. In our view the words impugned are vague. Parliament has established no criteria, no standards and has not prescribed any principle on which a particular disease or condition is to / be specified in the Schedule. It is not stated what facts or circumstances are to be taken into consideration to include a particular condition or disease. The power of specifying diseases and conditions as given in section 3 (d) must therefore be held to be going beyond permissible boundaries of valid delegation.... It is not stated what facts or circumstances are to be taken into consideration to include a particular condition or disease. The power of specifying diseases and conditions as given in section 3 (d) must therefore be held to be going beyond permissible boundaries of valid delegation.... By a portion of clause (d) of section 3 and the whole of section 8 being declared unconstitutional the Act is not thereby affected as they are severable from the rest of the Act.” 23. In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs. The Raneegunge Coal Association Ltd & others reported in AIR 1978 SC 1456 , the Apex Court quoted from its earlier decision in Harichand's case reported in AIR 1967 SC 829 (834) as under: “A provision which leaves an unbridled power to an authority cannot in any sense be characterised as reasonable. Section 3 of the Regulation is one such provision and is therefore liable to be struck down as violative of Article 19 (1) (g).” 24. Rule 7 (b) is declared unconstitutional and is struck down, for, this Rule gives absolute and unlimited power to the State Government to fix seniority without laying down any standard or guidelines for exercise of that power, and such guidelines cannot be deciphered from any other provisions of the 1994 Rules and this rule is severable from the rest of the 1994 Rules. 25. In the result, the State respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the Mizoram Aided Schools Employees (Death-cum Retirement Gratuity) Rules, 7 1990 to the members of the petitioner Association within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. 26. Rule 7 (b) and Rule 8 of the Mizoram Middle Schools and High Schools (Provincialisation) Rules, 1994 are declared unconstitutional and are struck down. The seniority list prepared in exercise of power under Rule 7 (b) stands quashed. 27. This writ petition is allowed, to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.