JUDGMENT 1. - Since a common question is involved in all these appeals, the same are being decided by this common order. 2. The D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 463/2005 has been preferred against the order dated 24.5.2005 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1841/1999. The D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 541/2006 has been preferred against the order dated 2.6.2005 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 773/1999, whereby the above writ petition was allowed in terms of the order dated 24.5.2005 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1841/1999. The D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 309/2007 has been preferred against the order dated 3.8.2005 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1542/2001 whereby the above writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 24.5.2005 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1841/1999. 3. The common facts, involved in all these appeals, are that all the private respondents were appointed as Fieldman, Garden Supervisor, Grape-pruner, Village Extension Worker and the Field Assistant in the Agriculture Department prior to 20.4.1977. At the time of appointment of the private respondents on the above mentioned posts, no educational qualification was prescribed as there were no service rules. The persons having qualification of matriculation or non-matriculation were given appointment at the District level by the competent authorities in the Agriculture Department. However, the above mentioned posts were re-designated as Agriculture Supervisors by the order dated 20.4.1977 bearing pay scale No. 7 ( Rs. 355-570). However, vide order dated 18.6.1980 issued by the competent authority, pay scale No. 7 was granted to the Agriculture Supervisors irrespective of their educational qualification. 4. The Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1978) were promulgated vide notification dated 29.6.1978 and as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 1978, all the persons holding substantive posts specified in the schedule and all the persons regularly recruited in the service before the commencement of Rules of 1978, were made the members of service. In the Rules of 1978, the promotional post of the Agriculture Supervisor is Assistant Agriculture Officer. The post of Assistant Agriculture Officer was to be filled 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. In the Rules of 1978, the promotional post of the Agriculture Supervisor is Assistant Agriculture Officer. The post of Assistant Agriculture Officer was to be filled 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. For promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, a person was required to have 10 years experience on the post of Agriculture Supervisor, however, no qualification was required for promotion. 5. It is not in dispute that the State Government issued an order dated.23.9.1989 by which selection grade for each eligible post was the scale for the next higher post in regular line except for the posts in subordinate services from which promotions are made directly to a post in State Service and isolated posts. Thereafter, the State Government fixed the selection grade pay scale of Agriculture Supervisors, including the respondents as per the order dated 23.9.1989. 6. However, after the grant of benefit of selection grade to the Agriculture Supervisor, the Rules of 1978 were amended and for the first time, the educational qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer was prescribed. 7. After the amendment in the Rules of 1978, vide notification dated 1.4.1999, the State Government in view of the limited opportunity of promotion and with a view to remove the problem of stagnation and to grant financial relief to its employees, issued a notification dated 25.1.1992 to provide selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Thereafter, the pay scales of employees of the State Government was revised through Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1998). The Rules of 1998 came into force w.e.f. 1.9.1996, however, in the meantime, the Director, Agriculture Department, Rajasthan issued a circular dated 23.5.1998 whereby the Agriculture Supervisors and Assistant Agriculture Officers have been fixed in the selection grade. 8. After issuance of the circular dated 23.5.1998, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department issued a letter dated 3.9.1998 to the Director, Agriculture Department, Rajasthan in which it has been mentioned that Agriculture Supervisors, possessing academic qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, are only eligible for first selection grade in the pay scale of next higher post i.e. Assistant Agriculture Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000, irrespective of the fact that whether they possess the requisite period of experience prescribed for promotion or not. It is clarified in the order dated 3.9.1998 that the Agriculture Supervisors, who do not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, are eligible for first, second and third selection grades as specified in para 5 of the order dated 17.2.1998. Later on, the Director Agriculture Department issued a circular dated 12.10.1998 and as per the said circular such Agriculture Supervisors, who do not possess prescribed qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, are entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 in place of 5500-9000 on completion of 9 years of service and pay scales of Rs. 5000-9000 and 6,500-10,500 on completion of 18 and 20 years of service respectively. 9. The private respondents have challenged the said action of the respondents while contending that they were provided the benefit of first selection grade in the year 1989 as per order dated 23.9.1989 because at that time, they were eligible for promotion to that post. However, later on, while amending the Rules of 1978 vide notification dated 1.4.1991, the educational qualification for promotion on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer was prescribed, but same cannot be made applicable retrospectively and cannot affect the vested right of the Agriculture Supervisors, whose selection grade was fixed as per the rules in force at that time. It is contended on behalf of private respondents that the amendment in the Schedule attached to the Rules of 1978 vide notification dated 1.4.1991 is prospective and it cannot be applied to their case. It is contended that the retrospective application of the said amendment is adversely affecting the vested right of the employees and, therefore, the same is ultra vires to the powers of rule making authority. 10. The claim of the private respondents was contested by the State and it was claimed that after amendment in the Rules of 1978 vide notification dated 1.4.1991, those persons, who were possessing the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, have been held entitled for promotion as well as for pay scale of higher post. 10. The claim of the private respondents was contested by the State and it was claimed that after amendment in the Rules of 1978 vide notification dated 1.4.1991, those persons, who were possessing the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, have been held entitled for promotion as well as for pay scale of higher post. It is also contended on behalf of the State that selection grade cannot be conferred upon such Agriculture Supervisors, who do not possess eligibility for promotion on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer. It is contended that the benefit of selection grade is conferred upon the employees in order to remove the stagnation and if they have not been able to get promotion on account of lacking qualification, the benefit of selection grade cannot be conferred upon them. 11. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, has held that the petitioners, who were working as Agriculture Supervisors, were granted the benefit of selection grade in the next higher pay scale i.e. of Assistant Agriculture Officer in the year 1989 vide order dated 23.9.1989. It is further observed by the learned single Judge that prior to the amendment in the Rules of 1978 vide notification dated 1.4.1991, the qualification for promotion on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer from Agriculture Supervisor was 10 years experience of working on the post of Agriculture Supervisor. For the first time, the education qualification was prescribed for promotion on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer vide notification dated 1.4.1991 by amending the Rules of 1978. The learned single Judge has further observed that as per notification dated 20.4.1998, the first selection grade for the Agriculture Supervisors would be Rs. 5500-9000. Vide another notification dated 23.5.1998, it was provided that the first selection grade will be granted to the Agriculture Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and second and third selection will be granted in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and Rs. 8000-13500 respectively irrespective of their qualification. 5500-9000. Vide another notification dated 23.5.1998, it was provided that the first selection grade will be granted to the Agriculture Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and second and third selection will be granted in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and Rs. 8000-13500 respectively irrespective of their qualification. The learned single Judge has further observed that in the year 1989, when the petitioners were fixed in the pay scale of Assistant Agriculture Officer, they were eligible for promotion on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer in accordance with rules prevailing at that time, it is held by learned single Judge that vide subsequent amendment in the rules vide notification dated 1.4.1991, the benefit, accrued to the private respondents, cannot be taken away. 12. After relying upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned single Judge has held that the secured and vested rights of the petitioners have been taken away vide notification dated 3.9.1998 and circular dated 12.10.1998, though when the petitioners were granted the benefit of first selection grade, they were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer. The benefit that has been accrued to the private respondents under the said rules cannot be taken away by the amendment with retrospective effect. It is held by the learned single Judge that the act of respondents of issuing notification which has effect of taking away the benefit already available to the petitioners under the existing rules is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. After carefully examining the points in issue and after perusing the impugned orders and scrutinising the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that once the private respondents were granted the benefit of selection grade in the year 1989, taking into consideration their eligibility for promotion on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, the said benefit cannot be withdrawn or taken away on the basis of an amendment made in the year 1991 in the respective rules. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.R. Kapur and others v. State of Haryana & Ors. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.R. Kapur and others v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 584 : (1987 Lab IC 238) has held as under:- It is well-settled that the power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with a retrospective effect: B.S. Vadhera v. Union of India, ( AIR 1969 SC 118 ) , Raj Kumar v. Union of India ( AIR 1975 SC 1116 ) , K. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Sate of A.R & Anr. ( AIR 1985 SC 551 ) and State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors. ( AIR 1974 SC 1 ) is equally well-settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to he considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well-recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules, cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words, such rules laying down qualifications for promotion made with retrospective effect must necessary satisfy the tests of Articles 14 and 16( 1) of the Constitution:" (Emphasis supplied) 15. In view of above, we are not persuaded to take a different view as expressed by the learned single Judge in the impugned orders.Hence, there is no merit in these appeals. The same are hereby dismissed. The stay petitions are also dismissed.,Appeals dismissed. *******