JUDGMENT 1. :- Petitioner seeks to quash amendment dated March 5, 1987 (Ex.9) and prayed that the corrigendum dated June 22, 1987 read with the seniority list dated April 28, 1987 be declared null and void and petitioner's position at No.9 in the seniority list dated April 28, 1987 be restored and his candidature for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (M) be considered accordingly with all consequential benefits. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner has been retired on October 31, 1999. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that regular appointment by promotion as Assistant Engineer from 1972 was denied to him on the basis of amendment dated March 5, 1987. According to the petitioner Notification dated March 5, 1987 (Annexure-9) is ultravires. In the seniority list dated April 28, 1987 Ex.12 correct position was assigned at S.No.9 but his position was run down to No.27 A on the basis of amendment dated March 5, 1987 because by this amendment those Engineering Subordinates (M) who had been appointed on urgent temporary basis have been granted a regular appointment based on departmental selection which was not a regular selection. Thus all these persons who were not having any regular appointment based on any regular selection have been given regular appointment retrospectively and the same is clearly an unconstitutional discrimination. Framing of such a rule is beyond the scope of the proviso to Article 309 and it is beyond the legislative competence of the Governor to frame such a rule giving retrospective regular appointment so as to render seniors to be juniors. Amendment dated March 5, 1987 is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and ultravires of proviso to Articles 309, 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 3. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and averred that the persons at S.No. 1 to 7 and 9 of the Schedule A have been duly selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee and they are not junior to the petitioner rather they are senior to the petitioner. Persons at S.No. 10 and 15 have been reverted as Sub Engineer vide order dated July 6, 1987. Persons at S.No. 8 and 11 of the Schedule A are senior to the petitioner as they stand at S.No. 19 and 20 of the seniority list of Sub Engineers. Persons at S.No. 10 and 15 have been reverted as Sub Engineer vide order dated July 6, 1987. Persons at S.No. 8 and 11 of the Schedule A are senior to the petitioner as they stand at S.No. 19 and 20 of the seniority list of Sub Engineers. Persons at S.No. 13, 14 and 16 have been selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineers in the direct quota. Rest of the persons as mentioned by the petitioner are degree holders and their seniority list is maintained separately. The petitioner is diploma holder so he cannot claim promotion in comparison to degree holders. Merely posting a person on urgent temporary basis as Assistant Engineer will not affect their seniority for the purpose of their regular promotion. No person junior to the petitioner has been posted as Assistant Engineer on urgent temporary basis. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. Notification dated March 5, 1987 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India whereby amendment in Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1987 was made and in rule 5 existing clause (c) was renumbered as clause (d) and after the clause (b) new clause (c) was added thus : "(c) that the persons selected on or after 21.2.64 for the post of Engineering Subordinate (Mech.) in the Rajasthan Canal Project by the Committee constituted under appointments department Notification No. F.14(8) Apptts/A-IV/56 dated 11.1.65 shall be deemed to have been regularly recruited to the service as Engineering Subordinate (Mech..if they fulfilled the minimum qualification as prescribed by the then Rajasthan Canal Project Department." Existing proviso (9) to Rule 28 following new proviso was added "(10) that the persons appointed to the service under clause (c) to rule 5 shall rank senior to the persons screened under proviso (3) of Rule 6 and appointed to the service under sub-rule (a) of rule 6." 6. I do not see any unconstitutionality in the afore quoted amendments. The Legislature under Article 309 and the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution can make law determining the service conditions of the Government employee and such law can also be retrospective as is held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Govt. I do not see any unconstitutionality in the afore quoted amendments. The Legislature under Article 309 and the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution can make law determining the service conditions of the Government employee and such law can also be retrospective as is held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. vs. Syed Youshddin Ahmed ( 1997 (7) SCC 24 ) . Under these circumstances I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The writ petition has no merit and it is accordingly rejected wihout any order as to costs.Petition Rejected. *******