Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1145 (GUJ)

Punjaji N. Patel v. State of Gujarat

2016-06-21

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2016
JUDGMENT J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, desirous of seeking promotion to the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector, have prayed for the following reliefs : "(A) Your Lordships will be pleased to admit and allow the present petition; (B) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioners as Asst. Sub Inspector with all consequential benefits from February 2013. (C) Such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted." 2. The facts of this case may be summarised as under : "The petitioners came to be appointed as the Armed Head Constables (State Reserve Police) under the respondent No. 3. In the year 2009, they cleared the second grade examination and were promoted as the Armed Head Constables w.e.f. 30th July 2009. On 28th January 2003, an office order was passed by the respondent No. 3 for conducting the exam for the purpose of departmental promotions from the Armed Head Constables to the Assistant Sub-Inspectors. The exam was conducted between 7th February 2013 and 9th February 2013. In all, 88 candidates appeared in the exam and 49 Armed Head Constables were declared as 'pass'. The list of successful candidates was forwarded to the respondent No. 2 on 11th February 2013." 3. It is the case of the petitioners that although they cleared the examination in 2013, yet till this date, they have not been given promotions on the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector. Hence, this petition. 4. At this stage, it may not be out of place to state that during the pendency of this writ-application some developments took place which has changed the entire complexion of the matter. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, his clients came to be promoted in November 2014 as the Assistant Sub-Inspectors, subject to the final outcome of this petition i.e. the Special Civil Application No. 3148 of 2014. In the mean time, a notification came to be issued dated 13th May 2015 for the departmental examination for the purpose of promotion to the posts of Platoon Commander. In the mean time, a notification came to be issued dated 13th May 2015 for the departmental examination for the purpose of promotion to the posts of Platoon Commander. The notification makes it clear that only those Assistant Sub-Inspectors who have put in more than two years of service would be eligible to appear in the departmental examination. I am told that the departmental examination is scheduled to be held on 30th June 2016. In such circumstances, one Civil Application No. 11166 of 2015 came to be filed with the following prayers : "(A) Your Lordships will be pleased to admit and allow the present Civil Application and pleased to direct the respondents to allow the applicants for the departmental examination for the post of Platoon Commander. (B) Your Lordships will be pleased to expedite the hearing of Special Civil Application No. 3148 of 2014 and fix the date of early final hearing. (C) Such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted." 5. While opposing the said Civil Application, an affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, duly affirmed by the Police Inspector serving under the Commandant, SRP Force, Group-VI, District Sabarkantha, inter alia, stating as under : "3. I say and submit that the State Reserve Police Force (SRPF) is constituted into Groups that are stationed at different centres in the State. The constitution and working of SRPF Groups are governed by the provisions of the Gujarat SRPF Act-1951, Bombay SRPF Rules-1959 (as amended by the Government of Gujarat from time to time) and Orders issued by the supervisory authorities in the organisational hierarchy of the SRPF. At present, the organisation of the SRPF is headed by the Additional Director General of Police, Armed Units, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, while Respondent No. 3 is in command of SRPF Group-VI at Mudeti in Sabarkantha district of the State. 4. I say and submit that every SRPF Group has its own cadres of its Armed Constabulary in the non-gazetted ranks of Constable, Head Constable (which was earlier designated as Head Constable Grade-II) and Assistant Sub-Inspector (which was earlier designated as Head Constable Grade-I). The persons holding these Constabulary ranks in the SRPF are treated as "members of the subordinate ranks" as defined in Section-2(e) of the Gujarat SRPF Act-1951. The persons holding these Constabulary ranks in the SRPF are treated as "members of the subordinate ranks" as defined in Section-2(e) of the Gujarat SRPF Act-1951. Section-21(2)(c) of the Gujarat SRPF Act-1951 authorizes the State Government to make rules providing for the recruitment of the members of the subordinate ranks. Relevant extracts of the Gujarat SRPF Act-1951 are annexed herewith as Annexure-RI Colly. Since the petitioners are members of the subordinate ranks in the organization of the SRPF, their recruitment shall always be governed by the rules that may be made or amended by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section-21 of the Gujarat SRPF Act-1951. 5. It is submitted that recruitment to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in an SRPF Group is made exclusively by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons working in the feeder cadre of Head Constable (HC) on the basis of their inter se seniority. It is further submitted that to qualify for being considered for promotion as an ASI, the concerned HC must have passed the prescribed Departmental Promotion Examination (DPE). It may be mentioned that the holding of DPEs is not at all incumbent on the availability of vacant promotion posts and the same are required to be conducted annually on a regular basis, even when there is no vacancy available for promotion or no vacancy may be expected to arise for several years to come. This arrangement necessarily implies that promotion need not follow the passing of the prescribed DPE. The prescribed DPE is only of a qualifying nature and passing the OPE does not confer any advantage on the candidate in terms of his inter se seniority in the cadre of HC. It is submitted that immediately prior to 22/05/2013, the relevant rules in this regard were those that were prescribed by the State Government in the Bombay SRPF (Amendment) Rules-1999 as notified vide Home Department's Notification No. GG/1O3/99/MHK-2592-HC-27-E, dated 03/07/1999. A copy of the relevant extract of the said Notification is annexed hereth as Annexure-R2. It is submitted that immediately prior to 22/05/2013, the relevant rules in this regard were those that were prescribed by the State Government in the Bombay SRPF (Amendment) Rules-1999 as notified vide Home Department's Notification No. GG/1O3/99/MHK-2592-HC-27-E, dated 03/07/1999. A copy of the relevant extract of the said Notification is annexed hereth as Annexure-R2. Rules-56 and 57 of the Bombay SRPF Rules, 1959, as amended by the aforesaid Bombay SRPF (Amendment) Rules 1999, authorized an HC with a minimum service of 2 years to appear for the qualifying DPE so as to pass the same far acquiring the eligibility for promotion to the rank of an ASI. Thus, under the Recruitment Rules laid down in Annexure-R2, only those who had completed a minimum service of 2 years in the feeder cadre of HC and had passed the prescribed qualifying DPE could be considered for promotion as an ASI on the basis of their inter se seniority in the feeder cadre of HC. 6. It is submitted that the Government in the Home Department had amended the above-mentioned Recruitment Rules for ASIs vide their Notification No. GG/38/13/MHK/102011/1735/C, dated 22/05/2013. A copy of the relevant extract of the said Notification is annexed herewith as Annexure-R3. With that amendment, rules-56(1)(b) and 56(2) mandate that appointment to the post of ASI shall be made by promotion from amongst the persons who have passed the prescribed DPE and have an experience of 5 years in the post of Head Constable. While HCs with 2 years of experience could be promoted as ASI under the earlier Recruitment Rules at Annexure-R2; the amended Recruitment Rules at Annexure-R3 prescribe that with effect from 22/05/2013, only those HCs could be promoted as ASI who have completed a minimum service of 5 years in the feeder cadre of HC. Thus, a promotion to the post of ASI on or after 22/05/2013 shall inevitably amount to a violation of the Recruitment Rules at Annexure-R3 if a person with less than 5 years of service in the feeder cadre of HC is promoted. 7. It is admitted that the petitioners had passed the qualifying DPE meant for getting promoted as ASI on 11/02/2013 and that prior to 22/05/2013, they required an experience of only 2 years in the feeder cadre of HC for being eligible to be considered for promotion as ASI in view of the Recruitment Rules at Annexure-R2. 7. It is admitted that the petitioners had passed the qualifying DPE meant for getting promoted as ASI on 11/02/2013 and that prior to 22/05/2013, they required an experience of only 2 years in the feeder cadre of HC for being eligible to be considered for promotion as ASI in view of the Recruitment Rules at Annexure-R2. It is, however, pertinent to reiterate that passing the prescribed qualifying-DPE does not entitle an HC to immediately or automatically get promoted as an ASI, as the promotion to the rank of ASI is incumbent on the availability of vacant posts of ASI and one's inter se seniority among those HCs who have passed the qualifying DPE. Further, besides recording an endorsement in the Service Sheets of all the successful candidates of their having passed the qualifying DPE, the promotion to the rank of ASI is to be preceded by the convening of a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) headed by the Commandant of the Group. The DPC has to assess the suitability of the HCs (who have passed the qualifying DPE) for promotion to the rank of ASI in the light of their Annual Sheet Remarks of the last 5 years, pendency of Departmental Inquiries, pendency of Criminal Cases, ongoing Departmental Punishments involving withholding of increment, reversion to a lower post or reversion to a lower grade, and their status in relation to the CCC examination. The DPC is also required to ensure the adherence to the Reservation Policy of the State for SC and ST candidates on the basis of the duly approved Roster Register of the Group. Thus, elaborate information and other administrative prerequisites are required to be carefully collated and compiled before the DPC can be convened for assessing the suitability of HCs for promotion to the rank of ASI. It is submitted that, before these administrative requirements for assessing the suitability of the petitioners for promotion could be completed, all the 67 vacant posts of ASI got abolished on 28/02/2013. A formal order to that effect was issued by the Government in the Home Department vide their Resolution No. MHK/1006/4701/S, dated 08/03/2013. A copy of the said Government Resolution is annexed herewith as Annexure-R4. The abolished posts came to be revived by the Government in the Home Department vide their Resolution No. MHK/1006/4701/S, dated 18/10/2014. A formal order to that effect was issued by the Government in the Home Department vide their Resolution No. MHK/1006/4701/S, dated 08/03/2013. A copy of the said Government Resolution is annexed herewith as Annexure-R4. The abolished posts came to be revived by the Government in the Home Department vide their Resolution No. MHK/1006/4701/S, dated 18/10/2014. A copy of the said Government Resolution is annexed herewith as Annexure- R5. Thus, no vacant post of ASI was available in the Group from 01/03/2013 to 17/10/2014 and hence, there was no question of promoting the petitioners on the strength of their having passed the qualifying DPE on 11/02/2013. Since the Recruitment Rules came to be amended in the meantime by the Government in the Home Department vide their Notification dated 22/05/2013 at Annexure-R3, the petitioners could be considered for promotion by Respondent No. 3 only after they acquired experience of 5 years in the feeder cadre of HC. In terms of their dates of promotion to the rank of ASI, the status of the petitioners is as follows. Petitioner No. 6 (Babusingh S. Parmar) 05/10/15 Petitioner No. 31 (Rameshbhai P. Limbat) Still an HC Petitioner No. 32 (Dilipsinh B. Bihola) Still an HC Petitioner No. 35 (Yashwantsingh M. Makvana) Still an HC Remaining 36 petitioners 13/11/2014 8. It is submitted that there is no provision in administrative rules to grant the benefit of deemed date to any employee on the count of availability of a vacant post prior to his actual promotion. Hence, the availability of vacant posts of ASI from 12/02/2013 to 28/02/2013 and from 18/10/2014 till the actual date of promotion of the petitioners constitutes no ground to grant them the benefit of promotion with deemed date. All the petitioners (with the exception of petitioners at Sl. Nos. 31, 32 and 35, who are yet to be promoted as ASI) are, thus, entitled to be considered as ASI only with effect from the respective dates of their promotion to that rank. As a consequence, Petitioner No. 6 cannot complete 2 years as ASI prior to 05/10/2017, while Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5, 7 to 30, 33, 34 and 36 to 40 cannot complete 2 years as ASI before 13/11/2016. 9. The prevalent Recruitment Rules at Annexure-R3 mandate that an ASI with minimum experience of 2 years in that cadre can take the DPE for Platoon Commander/Armed Police Sub-Inspector. 1 to 5, 7 to 30, 33, 34 and 36 to 40 cannot complete 2 years as ASI before 13/11/2016. 9. The prevalent Recruitment Rules at Annexure-R3 mandate that an ASI with minimum experience of 2 years in that cadre can take the DPE for Platoon Commander/Armed Police Sub-Inspector. Since the petitioners have yet to complete the prescribed period of 2 years as ASI, none of the petitioners is entitled to be considered as a candidate for the DPE for Platoon Commander prior to the completion of 2 years in the feeder cadre of ASI. A copy of the promotion order is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R6. Hence, there is no substance or merit in the contentions of the petitioners and it is prayed that their Civil Application may kindly be dismissed." 6. Thus, the picture that emerges as on date is that the petitioners having been promoted as the Assistant Sub-Inspectors w.e.f. November 2014, could not be said to have completed two years of service on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector and, therefore, they are not eligible to appear in the departmental examination which is going to be conducted on 30th June 2016 for the purpose of promotion on the posts of Platoon Commander. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that although the examination was conducted way back in the year 2013, yet the orders of promotions were issued only in November 2014, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. This grievance is voiced because they are not eligible to appear in the examination which is going to be conducted on 30th June 2016. 8. This writ-application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Goutam, the learned AGP appearing for the State respondents. He has relied on the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, duly affirmed by the Police Inspector, SRP Group-VI, Sabarkantha, inter alia, stating as under : "6. It is respectfully submitted that by way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to direct the respondent authority to give promotion to the petitioners as Assistant Sub-Inspector with all consequential benefits from February 2013. The case of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner being 40 in numbers had successfully passed the examination and that there are posts of Assistant Sub-inspector vacant upto 28.02.2014. The case of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner being 40 in numbers had successfully passed the examination and that there are posts of Assistant Sub-inspector vacant upto 28.02.2014. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petition does not contain the requisite details. 7. It is respectfully submitted that, as far as the petitioners are concern, they were governed by the rules of Bombay State Reserve Police Rules, 1959. A notification dated 03.07.1999 being the amendment to the rules came to be issued, the table in the said amendment indicates that a candidate seeking promotion to the post of Head Constable grade-I (which is now known as A.S.I.) (by notification dated 07.09.1998). It clearly provides that a head constable with minimum service of two years is eligible for examination. A copy of the notification dated 03.07.1999 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-I. 8. It is respectfully submitted that by a notification dated 22.05.2013, the rules came to be further amended. The said rules provided that a candidate seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector shall have minimum experience of two years in the cadre of Head Constable. However, the amendment to clause-(b) of rules-56(1) provides that, in the case of Assistant Sub-Inspector by promotion a person shall have experience of 5 years in the post of Head constable. Therefore, a candidate is eligible to sit in the examination after completing two years as Head Constable but, is entitled for promotion only after serving for a period of 5 years as Head Constable. A notification dated 22.05.2013 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-II. 9. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners were by an order dated 16.08.2012, issued by the Commandant of SRPF Group-6 promoted as Armed Head Constable. Pursuant to the recommendations of the DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee). The said order clearly mentions that the promotions were given with effect from 30.07.2009. A copy of the order dated 16.08.2012 along with the table indicating the actual date of promotions are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-III collectively for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10. Pursuant to the recommendations of the DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee). The said order clearly mentions that the promotions were given with effect from 30.07.2009. A copy of the order dated 16.08.2012 along with the table indicating the actual date of promotions are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-III collectively for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10. It is pertinent to note that the notification dated 22.05.2013 which says that a candidate may appear in the examination and is eligible to appear in the examination after completing two years in the post of Head Constable but is entitled for promotion only after completion of 5 years in the cadre of Head Constable. In the present case all the petitioners are promoted to the post of Head Constable with effect from 30.07.2009 and therefore, they shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector only after completion of 5 years after 31.07.2014, that too as per the rules pertaining to the promotion, if found eligible. A copy of the order dated 16.08.2012 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-IV. 11. It is therefore respectfully submitted that, as far as the case of the petitioner is concern, the same shall be governed by the rules which are in force on the date when the petitioners are eligible to promotion. In the present case, since the petitioners have not completed 5 years in the post of Head Constable as required by the amended rules being Bombay State Reserve Police Rules, 1959 which came into force by notification dated 22.05.2013. The petitioners are as such not entitle for any relief as prayed for by the petitioners." 9. Thus, the stance of the State Government is very clear. By a notification dated 22nd May 2013, the rules came to be amended and the amendment to clause (b) of Rule 56(1) reads as under : "NOTIFICATION Home Department Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. Dated, the 22nd May, 2013. No.GG/38/13/MHK/102011/1735/C :- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 21 of the Gujarat State Reserve Police Force Act, 1951 (Bom.XXXVIII of 1951), the Government of Gujarat hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Bombay State Reserve Police Force Rules, 1959, namely :- 1. These rules may be called the Gujarat State Reserve Police Force (Amendment) Rules, 2013. 2. These rules may be called the Gujarat State Reserve Police Force (Amendment) Rules, 2013. 2. In the Bombay State Reserve Police Force Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"), for rules 56 and 57, the following rules shall be substituted, namely :- "56. (1) Appointment to the post of Head Constable, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Platoon Commander or Armed Police Sub-Inspector, Class-III, shall be made, - (a) in the case of Head Constable, by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons having an experience of seven years in the post of Constable; (b) in the case of Assistant Sub-Inspector, by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons having an experience of five years in the post of Head Constable; (c) in the case of Platoon Commander or Armed Police Sub-Inspector, by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons having an experience of five years in the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. (2) To be eligible for appointment by promotion to posts mentioned in sub-rule (1), a candidate shall have passed the prescribed departmental examination referred to in rule 60." 57. The person specified in column (1) shall be eligible to appear in the departmental examination for the post specified in column (2) of the Table below, to be conducted by the Departmental Examination Board constituted under rule 59. TABLE Person eligible for Departmental Examination Departmental Examination for promotion to the post of (1) (2) (i) Head Constable with minimum experience of 2 years in that cadre. (ii) Constable who is in receipt of the First Higher Grade Scale in Head Constable for two years. Assistance Sub-Inspector Assistance Sub-Inspector with minimum experience of 2 years in that cadre. Platoon Commander or Armed Police Sub-Inspector 10. Thus, the stance of the State Government is very clear as reflected from both the affidavits: one, filed in the main matter, and another, filed in the Civil Application. 11. The petitioners indisputably have not put in two years of service as the Assistant Sub-Inspectors and, therefore, are not entitled to appear in the departmental examination scheduled to be held on 30th June 2016. 11. The petitioners indisputably have not put in two years of service as the Assistant Sub-Inspectors and, therefore, are not entitled to appear in the departmental examination scheduled to be held on 30th June 2016. It is too much on the part of the petitioners to contend that had they been promoted immediately on clearing the examination which was conducted in the year 2013 for the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, then probably, by now, they would have completed two years of service and would have been entitled to appear in the forthcoming examination. I may only say that passing the necessary examination by itself would not confer any absolute or indefeasible right of being considered for promotion. At times, on account of administrative exigencies, the promotions are delayed. However, it is just a fortuitous circumstance. No fault can be found with the respondents in not giving promotions immediately in the year 2013 itself. However, the respondents have thought fit to promote the petitioners w.e.f. November 2014. The details could be found in the affidavit-in-reply, which has been filed in the Civil Application. 12. I am also not impressed by the argument of Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the rules could not have been amended and made applicable with retrospective effect, thereby marring the chances of promotion. If there is any amendment in the rules, by which the chances of promotion are affected in any manner, then that by itself will not render the rule or the action bad in law. 13. In fact, this issue has not arisen at all. This is not the issue even taken up in the petition. Since it has been argued, I have thought fit to express my opinion. Probably, what is hurting the petitioners is the amendment in rule 56(1)(c) introduced by way of a notification dated 22nd May 2013 which provides that the promotion in the case of Platoon Commander would be on the basis of proved merit and efficiency from amongst the persons having an experience of five years in the post of the Assistant Sub-Inspector. 14. Let me assume for the moment that the petitioners would have appeared in the exam on 30th June 2016, but they would have been considered for the post of promotion only after putting in five years of service in the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. 15. 14. Let me assume for the moment that the petitioners would have appeared in the exam on 30th June 2016, but they would have been considered for the post of promotion only after putting in five years of service in the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. 15. The issue of giving retrospective effect to the amended rules, which may affect the chances of promotions has been considered at length in the case of Karimbhai Alibhai Multani and others v. State of Gujarat and others (Special Civil Application No. 9880 of 2015 and allied matters, decided on 1st December 2015). The same reads as under : "38. 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. It is equally well settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be 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 recognized principle with 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 309which affects or impairs vested rights. Therefore, 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 necessarily satisfy with the test of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. (See : T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana, [ AIR 1987 SC 415 ]) 39. In the case in hand, none of the petitioners of the Special Civil Application No. 6624 of 2014 have been promoted as Foresters, and they are sought to be reverted to the posts of Beat Guards. (See : T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana, [ AIR 1987 SC 415 ]) 39. In the case in hand, none of the petitioners of the Special Civil Application No. 6624 of 2014 have been promoted as Foresters, and they are sought to be reverted to the posts of Beat Guards. In the present case, they are seeking promotion, but the submission is that they should be considered for promotion without insisting for clearance of the departmental examination. 40. Mr. Raval very strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.R. Kapur (supra). In my view, this decision is, of no assistance to Mr. Raval in support of his arguments. This very decision of the Supreme Court in T.R. Kapur (supra) has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Jagdeesan v. Union of India and others [ 1990 (2) SCC 228 ]. I may quote the observations made by the Supreme Court in paras 5 and 6 as under: 5. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of this Court in T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana where it was held that right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service. This decision is, however, of no assistance to the learned counsel in support of his argument because the Bench which rendered the said decision has stated as follows: (SCC p. 595, para 16) "It is well settled that the power to frame rules to. regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with a retrospective effect. It is equally well settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chance of promotion may not be." It was further held 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". It was, however, clarified that:-"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." 6. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively". It was, however, clarified that:-"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." 6. It is only in this sense, that is, as set out in the immediately preceding paragraph that the view has been taken that the rules cannot be retrospective. The ratio of this decision is not applicable to the case before us as there is no question of reverting the appellant. Again, it has been held by a Bench comprising three learned Judges of this Court, in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, (1981) 4 SCC 130 : ( AIR 1981 SC 1990 ) (at paragraph 16, page 141 (of SCC)) (at p. 1997 of AIR) of the said report), that mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the condition of service. A right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of promotion are not. It was also held there that mere passing of the departmental examination conferred no right on the concerned S.T. Inspectors of Bombay to promotion. They merely became eligible for promotion. They had to be brought on to a select list, not merely on the length of service but on the basis of merit-cum-seniority principle. 41. I am of the view that no retrospective effect has been given to the said amended rules. It is not argued that the petitioners have been reverted from the posts which they occupied on the ground of any lack of any qualification. The only fact is that their chances of promotions, or their rights to be considered for promotions to the posts of Foresters are adversely affected. This cannot be regarded as retrospective effect being given to the amendment of the rules carried out by the impugned Notification, and the challenge to the said Notification on that ground must fail. 42. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Triloki Nath Khosa (supra) held as under: 22. This cannot be regarded as retrospective effect being given to the amendment of the rules carried out by the impugned Notification, and the challenge to the said Notification on that ground must fail. 42. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Triloki Nath Khosa (supra) held as under: 22. An argument which found favour with Mufti Bahauddin J., one of the learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, and which was repeated before us is that the "retrospective'' application of the impugned rules is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is difficult to appreciate this argument and impossible to accept it. It is wrong to characterise the operation of a service rule as retrospective for the reason that it applies to existing employees. A rule which classifies such employees for promotional purposes. undoubtedly operates on those who entered service before the framing of the rule but it operates in future, in the sense that it governs the future right of promotion of those who are already in service. The impugned rules do not recall a promotion already made or reduce a pay-scale already granted. They provide for a classification by prescribing a qualitative standard, the measure of that standard being educational attainment. Whether a classification founded on such a considerations suffers from a discriminatory vice is another matter which we will presently consider but surely, the rule cannot first be assumed to be retrospective and then be struck down for the reason that it violates the guarantee of equal opportunity be extending its arms over the past. If rules governing conditions of service cannot ever operate to the prejudice of those who are already in service, the age of superannuation should have remained immutable and schemes of compulsory retirement in public interest ought to have foundered on the rock of retroactivity. But such is not the implications of service rules nor is it their true description to say that because they affect existing employees they are retrospective. It is well settled that though employment under the Government like that under any other master may have a contractual origin, the Government servant acquires a 'status' on appointment to his office. As a result, his rights and obligations are liable to be determined under statutory or constitutional authority which, for its exercise, requires no reciprocal consent. It is well settled that though employment under the Government like that under any other master may have a contractual origin, the Government servant acquires a 'status' on appointment to his office. As a result, his rights and obligations are liable to be determined under statutory or constitutional authority which, for its exercise, requires no reciprocal consent. The Government can alter the terms and conditions of its employees unilaterally and though in modern times consensus in matters relating to public services is often attempted to be achieved consent is not a pre-condition of the validity of rules of service, the contractual origin of the service notwithstanding. 43. In my view, the observations of the Supreme Court referred to above, clinches the issue and no more case law is necessary to be discussed in the matter. 44. Triloki Nath Khosa (supra) has been considered by a subsequent Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Chairman, Railway Board (supra). After quoting para 16 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed in para 20 as under: "20. It can, therefore, be said that a rule which operates in futuro so as to govern future rights of those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retro-activity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule which seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted or availed of, e.g., promotion or pay scale, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. 46. My conclusion is as under: (a) None of the petitioners can assert as a matter of right that they should be promoted to the posts of Foresters without insisting for passing the departmental examination. (b) The amended rule, which provides for clearing or passing of the departmental examination, is in no manner illegal or arbitrary. (c) In the facts of the case, none of the vested rights or accrued rights could be said to have been taken away by the amended rules much to the prejudice of the Beat Guards seeking promotion. (d) A rule, which operates in futuro, so as to govern future rights of those already in service, cannot be assailed on the ground of retro-activity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (d) A rule, which operates in futuro, so as to govern future rights of those already in service, cannot be assailed on the ground of retro-activity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (e) All those Beat Guards, who have cleared the departmental examination in the prescribed period and chances, may be considered for being promoted to the posts of Foresters. All those Beat Guards who have not been able to clear the departmental examination, shall be given an opportunity to appear in the same, and if they are able to clear, then they may also be considered for being promoted to the posts of Foresters. (f) All those Beat Guards, who have been promoted to the posts of Foresters without clearance of the departmental examination, shall be reverted to their original posts at the earliest." 16. In the overall view of the matter, I am not convinced with the case put up by the petitioners. As a result, this writ-application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule discharged. 17. It is clarified that the promotions of the petitioners on the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector are not to be disturbed. I have confined the adjudication of the writ-application having regard to the subsequent developments only keeping in mind, whether the petitioners are entitled to appear in the departmental examination scheduled to be held on 30th June 2016 for the purpose of promotion on the posts of Platoon Commander.