Judgment : V. C. Daga, J. (1) Rule returnable forthwith. (2) By consent heard finally. (3) The petitioners, in all these petitions, are seeking declaration of invalidity so far as the Government Resolution dated 5-8-2010 issued by the respondent No. 1 is concerned, contending that it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The factual matrix. (4) The factual matrix reveals that all these petitions involved common issue based on more or less similar facts. So they are being disposed of by this common judgment. (5) The factual matrix is borrowed from the Writ Petition No. 4155/2010 (Suman Shriram Kakad vs. State of Maharashtra and another) wherein the petitioner was selected and appointed as Anganwadi Sevika on 13-6-1994. (6) The respondent No. 1-State of Maharashtra had issued a Resolution dated 9-1-2002 imposing restrictions on the Anganwadi Sevikas and helpers on their right to contest election through any political parties and were prevented from canvassing in the election. (7) The aforesaid Resolution was challenged in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In pursuance of the decision of this Court, the respondent No. 1 issued another Resolution on 31-1-2002; whereby earlier Resolution dated 9-1-2002 restricting the right to contest election of the Anganwadi Sevikas and Helpers was withdrawn and a fresh Resolution dated 12-12-2008 was issued wherein it was clarified that Anganwadi Sevikas and helpers can contest and participate in the election subject to the contesting candidates taking precaution that their work as elected member and their duties as Anganwadi Sevika or helper are not affected and that they shall perform their duties efficiently and not remain absent from work. (8) The elections of the Gram Panchayat, Chincholi Shingane were declared. The petitioner being interested in contesting the election for the post of Member of Gram Panchayat applied for permission to contest the election. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 - Child Development Project Officer was pleased to grant permission to the petitioner to contest election on certain conditions. (9) The petitioner contested the said election and got elected as a Member of the said Gram Panchayat. On declaration of the result on 12-5-2010, she assumed charge of the office and since then she is a Member of the Gram Panchayat and continued to discharge her dual duties. There are no complaints about her work as Anganwadi Sevika. (9) The petitioner contested the said election and got elected as a Member of the said Gram Panchayat. On declaration of the result on 12-5-2010, she assumed charge of the office and since then she is a Member of the Gram Panchayat and continued to discharge her dual duties. There are no complaints about her work as Anganwadi Sevika. (10) The State Government has now vide its resolution dated 5-8-2010 resolved to put restrictions on the right of the Anganwadi Sevikas and helpers in view of the communication received from the Central Government and resolved to prevent Anganwadi Sevikas from contesting election and taking part in canvassing, since it had noticed some lapse on the part of the Anganwadi Sevikas in discharge of their duties: Consequently, the respondent No. 1 issued a Resolution dated 5-8-2010 preventing Anganwadi Sevikas from contesting election to the post of Member 'of Gram Panchayat and making it mandatory for them to resign within 7 days either from the post of Anganwadi Sevika or the Member of the Gram Panchayat failing which removal from service is directed. Accordingly, the petitioner was served with the letter dated 18-8-2010 calling her to submit her resignation either as a Anganwadi Sevika or from the post of Member of the Gram Panchayat. In other words, she was prevented from holding two posts. (11) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid letter the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Submissions (12) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned resolution dated 5-8-2010 is absolutely arbitrary and violates the fundamental right to serve and also to discharge her public duties. Alternatively, it is urged that the said resolution has no retrospective effect. At the most it could have effect from the date of issuance i.e. 5-8-2010. Consequently, it will not apply or affect the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sevika or her election to the post as Member of the Gram Panchayat since she was validly permitted to contest election and hold both posts by virtue of the earlier Government Resolution dated 12-12-2008. That there was no prohibition to serve as Anganwadi Sevika as well as continue as an elected Member of the Gram Panchayat. A vested right is created in her favour. That there was no prohibition to serve as Anganwadi Sevika as well as continue as an elected Member of the Gram Panchayat. A vested right is created in her favour. (13) Per contra the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State tried to support the action taken by the State Government including the impugned Resolution dated 5-8-2010 followed by letter dated 18-8-2010. She further urged that the Government Resolution is issued pursuant to the instructions received from the Central Government dated 4th June, 2010. She further submits that the right to contest election being a statutory right there is no question of violating of any fundamental right of the petitioner. It being a statutory right, it can always be taken away by the Statute. She thus prayed for dismissal of the petition. Consideration (14) Having heard rival views, the first question which needs to be considered is whether the subject/ impugned resolution has a retrospective or prospective operation. (15) It is necessary to note that it is a cardinal principle of construction of statute that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to effect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective. As a logical corollary of general rule, that retrospective operation is not taken to be intended unless that intention was manifested by express words or necessary implication. Another principle flowing from presumption against retrospectivity is that one does not expect rights conferred by the statute to be destroyed by events which took place before it was passed. (16) Having gone through the Government Resolution dated 5-8-2010, an applying the aforesaid principle to the impugned resolution, we have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the circular has a prospective effect and, therefore, it does not affect the right of the petitioner. The subject resolution cancels the earlier Government Resolution dated 20-12-2008 with effect from 5-8-2010. The word "Henceforth" used in the Resolution leading to it's operation is clearly indicative of the fact that said resolution has a prospective effect. Even otherwise. The subject resolution cancels the earlier Government Resolution dated 20-12-2008 with effect from 5-8-2010. The word "Henceforth" used in the Resolution leading to it's operation is clearly indicative of the fact that said resolution has a prospective effect. Even otherwise. Government Resolution dated 20-12-2008, had permitted the Anganwadi Sevikas and helpers to contest election and to hold both the posts; one that of Anganwadi Sevika and other that of Member of Gram Panchayat giving rise to the vested right in their favour so as to enable them to hold elected post till expiry of the term. The vested right has not been taken away by the Government Resolution dated 5-8-2010. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the other challenges leading to the constitutional validity of the said Resolution. It does not take away the vested right of the petitioner. Rather it does not affect the petitioner, who is elected much prior to the date of the present resolution to the post of Member Gram Panchayat. (17) In the aforesaid view of the matter, we quash and set aside the communication dated 18-8-2010; whereunder the petitioner was directed to resign from either of the posts held by her. (18) Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. Order accordingly.