Judgment :- N. KUMAR J., The State has preferred these petitions challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short ‘the Tribunal’) which has held that exclusion of daughters-in-law , grand children, nephews and niece in the explanation to the ‘member of the family’ of Project Displaced Person under Rule (9) (2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) (57th Amendment) Rule, 2000 (for short 57th Amendment Rule, 2000) is arbitrary irrational and unreasonable and that the said rule requires amendment. 2. The daughter-in-law of Sri Doddegowda, grand son of Sri Rangegowda, daughter-in-law of Rangegowda applied for the post of primary teacher under ‘Yn’ category pursuant to the notification issued by the fourth respondent-DDPI. Their applications were rejected on the ground that they are not the members of the family of the project Displaced Person. Aggrieved by the same they preferred applications before the Tribunal challenging the validity of Rule 9(2) of 57th Amendment Rule 2000 contending that it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal has upheld their contention. Aggrieved by the same, State is before this Court. 3. Annexure-A1 is the notification dated 23-11-2000 in respect of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) (57th Amendment) Rules, 2000. Explanation 2 of Rule 9 Rules read as under: “(2)’ members of the family’ in relation to a project displaced person means the family of the project displaced person consisting of such person and his or her spouse, sons unmarried daughters, brothers and sisters residing with him and dependent on him for their livelihood.” Therefore, though daughter-in-laws and grand children are residing as members of the family, as they are not included in the definition of ‘members of the family’ they are not entitled to appointment under ‘YN’ category (Yojana Nirashirtaru- Projects Displaced person). In fact, after the order of the Tribunal holding that the said provision as offending Article 14 of the Constitution, it suggested to the Government to carry out the requisite amendment. In fact, after the order of the Tribunal holding that the said provision as offending Article 14 of the Constitution, it suggested to the Government to carry out the requisite amendment. It is in pursuance of the suggestion, the Government had issued a notification dated 30-3-2010 amending the said explanation-2 which reads as under: “Amendment of Rule 9:- In the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, in rule 9 in sub rule (1AA) under the explanation in clause (ii) for the words “brothers and sisters”, the words “brothers, sisters, grand son, unmarried granddaughter, daughter-in-law, widowed daughter and widowed grand daughter’ shall be inserted.” With the said amendment grand son unmarried grand daughter, daughter-in-law, widowed daughter, granddaughter are included in the definition of the family. 4. Now the short question for our consideration is whether those persons who are now included in the definition by way of amendment are entitled to the benefit of the scheme from the date of amendment or from the original order dated 23-11-2000? 5. The last word used in the amendment of Rule 9 at the end assume importance in deciding this question. The words used are ‘shall be inserted’. The question is, when by way of amendment certain words are inserted in the original section, what is the effect? Whether it would operate retrospectively or prospectively?. 6. In this regard, it is also useful to keep in mind the law which is well settled over a period. The question whether a statute operates prospectively or retrospectively is one of the legislative intent. If the terms of a statue are clear and unambiguous and it is manifest that the Legislature intended the Act to operate retrospectively, it must unquestionably be so construed. If, however, the terms of a statute do not of themselves make the intention certain or clear, the statute will be presumed to operate prospectively. While considering the question of the retrospective operation of the statute, the nature of the right affected must first be considered. All laws which affect substantive rights or vested rights generally operate prospectively. There is a presumption against their retrospectivity, if they affect vested rights and obligations unless the legislative intent is clear and compulsive. The rule that a statute is not to have retrospective operation is only applicable where it is doubtful from the language used whether or not it was intended to have such operation. There is a presumption against their retrospectivity, if they affect vested rights and obligations unless the legislative intent is clear and compulsive. The rule that a statute is not to have retrospective operation is only applicable where it is doubtful from the language used whether or not it was intended to have such operation. Where language of a statute plainly gives it a retrospective operation, the rule has no application. It is obviously competent, for the Legislature, if it pleases, in its wisdom to make the provisions of an Act of Parliament retrospective. 7. Where a section of a statute is amended, the original ceases to exist and the new section supersedes it and becomes a part of the law just as if the amendment had always been there. The amendment is retrospective in operation. Curative statues are obviously retroactive, and hence entitled, as a general rule, to retrospective operation. Being retroactive in their very nature, they will not usually be given any prospective effect. Being subject to a liberal construction, any doubt should be resolved in favour of retrospective operation. Nevertheless, there are even limitations on the extent of the retroactive operation of curative acts. Obviously, they cannot violate provisions of the constitution. Nor should they interfere with or destroy vested rights of third parties. A retrospective statute contemplates the past and givens to a previous transaction some different legal effect from that which it had under the law when it occurred or transpired. A retrospective law is one which reaches back to and gives to a prior transaction some different legal effect from that which it had under the law when it took place. If an Act provides that as at a past date the law shall be taken to have been that which is not, that Act is deemed to be retrospective. 8. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider this aspect in the case of Shamrao V Parulekar & Others Vs District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay & Others ( AIR 1952 SC 324 ) wherein it is held as under: “The construction of an Act which has been amended is now governed by technical rules and we must first be clear regarding the proper canons of construction. The rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed (except where that would lead to a repugnancy, inconsistency or absurdity) as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all. This is the rule in England: it is the law in America; and it is the law which the Privy Council applied to India.” 9. Therefore, in order to find out whether amended provision is retrospective or prospective, what we have to look at is the legislature intent. In the amended rule, the express words used are ‘shall be inserted’ which means it shall be inserted in the original section’. Though this amendment Act came into force from the day the rule was amended i.e 30-3-2010, Rule 9 as amended comes into effect from the date of its original law i.e., 23-11-2000. The legislative intent is clear and unambiguous. There is no scope for any interpretation. All that we have to do is to give effect to the letter and spirit amended provision. The additional words introduced into the provision are to be read and construed as if the said words had been written in the original section before amendment, with pen and ink, from the day the said law was made. Therefore, the contention that it is prospective and not retrospective and therefore, respondents herein are not entitled to the benefit of such provision has no substance. In fact, this amendment was necessitated after the Tribunal struck down the provision as unconstitutional and upheld the claim of the respondents, and suggested an amendment. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that said amended provision is retrospective in operation and the amendment is carried out in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal and respondents should have the benefit of the amended provision. 10. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. No costs.