JUDGMENT 1. By this writ petition, constitutional validity of the Notification dated 26th April, 2011 amending the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2011 (for short "Rules of 2011") has been challenged Sub-rule (3) of Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960 (for short "Rules of 1960") relating to "period of probation" has been amended. The "period of probation" mentioned in column 3 against each of the service rule was ordered to be deleted retrospectively. The amended rule was given effect since 20th January, 2006. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that amendment in the rule is unconstitutional. The amended provision offend Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners were promoted on the post of Agriculture Officer and are due for promotion to the post of Assistant Dire (Agriculture). The rule then existing was to exclude the "period of probation" for counting length of experience. By way of amendment, "period probation" is also to be counted to determine total period of experience is by virtue of deletion of word "period of probation" from the relevant Rule. By the amendment, the direct recruitees would become eligible promotion if total length of their service is counted towards experience. It effect the vested rights of the petitioners for promotion to the higher post. : moreso when, rule has been made retrospective without any rhyme reason. The arbitrariness in the amended rule thus exists and deserves to: struck down. 3. A reference of judgment in the case of P. Mohan Reddy v. E.A.A. Charles & Ors. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 433 has been given, therein, while dealing with the issue similar to what has been raised herein, the Apex Cot permitted adjudication of the issue of justification of retrospectivity of the amended rules, in view of the above, a prayer is made to consider as to whether retrospectivity of the rule is reasonable or not and if it unreasonable being in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, be declared ultra vires to the constitution. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel art scanned the matter carefully. 5. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the Notification dated 26th April, 2011 amending the Rules of 1960. The petitioner has also challenged the seniority list issued by the respondents on various grounds. 6. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel art scanned the matter carefully. 5. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the Notification dated 26th April, 2011 amending the Rules of 1960. The petitioner has also challenged the seniority list issued by the respondents on various grounds. 6. Since the matter has been brought before the Division Bench account of challenged to the constitutional validity of the amended rules, M we are first addressing the issue aforesaid. 7. The validity of the rule has been challenged alleging violation of the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is not only due to deletion? the word "period of probation" but its retrospective effect. The rule as m existing is quoted herein for ready reference : "(3). The period spent as probationer trainee shall not be counted for experience and eligibility for promotion." 8. The amended Rule is also quoted hereunder for ready reference : "2. Amendment - The existing sub-rule (3) of rule relating to "Period o probation" as mentioned in column number 3 against each of the service rules as mentioned in column number 2 of the Schedule given beta shall be deleted namely- Schedule S.No. Name of Service Rules Existing Rule No. 16 The Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960 30 9. By virtue of amendment in the Rule, now the period on probation spent by the direct recruitee would also be counted towards experience.1'; our opinion, when a person is given appointment against substantive pee and kept on probation, there was no reason to deny benefit of the period spent of duty and to be counted towards experience. Realizing the mistake, as was existing in the rule, amendment was made. It is then give retrospective effect since 20th January, 2006. 10. The only argument raised by learned counsel to maintain the challenge about' existing right of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Agriculture). It needs to be clarified that the right cannot be said to be existing to claim promotion, rather it becomes existing when the employee is actually promoted. A person already promoted cannot be effected by the amendment but challenge to the amendment herein is by anticipating promotion, thus cannot be said to be based on the existing right. It needs to be clarified that the right cannot be said to be existing to claim promotion, rather it becomes existing when the employee is actually promoted. A person already promoted cannot be effected by the amendment but challenge to the amendment herein is by anticipating promotion, thus cannot be said to be based on the existing right. The law about the existing right has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of T.R. Kapur & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 415 . 11. In view of the above, a claim of promotion cannot be said to be on existing right, thus challenged to the Notification on the aforesaid ground cannot sustain. 12. The question now remains regarding retrospectivity of the rules. 13. The legislature within their wisdom can make rule retrospective and in the instant case, to do the justice with the direct recruitees appointed on the substentive post, the word "period of probation" has been deleted. By virtue of the amendment in the rule, the recruitee on substantive post would became entitled to get benefit of experience from the initial date of appointment. There was no logic to deny benefit of experience to an employee during the period of probation. 14. In view of the above, the rule has been made retrospective and we do not find any illegality therein. It is not going to take away the existing right of the petitioners, hence, we do not find substance in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. 15. Learned counsel has referred the judgment in the case of P. Mohan Reddy (supra). Therein, it is held that if a rule is given retrospective effect, it can be applied though the challenge to retrospectivity can be considered. In that case, it was held that once, a person is appointed, his seniority is to be determined as per the existing rule and if the rule is amended, that too, retrospectively, the issue of retrospective can be considered. It is in the light of the fact that after the appointment in the cardre, one becomes entitled for seniority from the date of appointment on the post. If the rule is amended retrospectively, it may effect the existing right for the employee. 16. The case in hand is not of that nature. It is in the light of the fact that after the appointment in the cardre, one becomes entitled for seniority from the date of appointment on the post. If the rule is amended retrospectively, it may effect the existing right for the employee. 16. The case in hand is not of that nature. Here, the amended rule is not effecting the seniority but changes of promotion. The petitioners are yet to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Agriculture). The issue to consider validity of retrospectivity was allowed by the Apex Court in the given circumstances. We have considered the issue of retrospectivity herein and find justification thus remains no reason to cause interference in the amended rule. The writ petition for challenge to the Notification dated 26th April, 2011 is dismissed. 17. The final seniority list issued by the respondents has also been challenged herein, however, we find that it can be challenged before the appropriate Forum, thus without touching the issue of validity of seniority list issued by the respondents, the petitioners are given liberty to challenge it by taking appropriate legal recourse, as is available to them.Writ Petition Dismissed - Final Seniority List may be Challenged before Appropriate forum. *******