JUDGMENT : 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the notification dated 1.2.17 amending the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short "the Rules") framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 36 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short "the Act"). 2. The Chapter IV of such Rules deals with licence for sale, etc. of insecticides. Initially, Rule (1A) was inserted by virtue of an amendment published on 5.11.15, when following sub-rule was inserted:- "(1A) A person who applies for the grant of licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute insecticides shall possess or shall employ a person possessing a graduate degree in Agricultural Sciences or Biochemistry or Biotechnology or Life Sciences or in Science with Chemistry or Botany or Zoology as the minimum qualification : Provided that all retailers or dealers possessing a valid licence as on the date of notification of this sub-rule shall be allowed a period of two years to comply with the educational qualifications." 3. Later on, vide notification dated 1.2.17, the sub-rule (1A) was substituted with the following:- "(1A) Person who applies for the grant of licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute insecticides shall possess or employ a person possessing a graduate degree in Agricultural Sciences or Biochemistry or Biotechnology or Life Sciences or in Science with Chemistry or Botany or Zoology from a recognised university or Institute; Or One year diploma course in Agriculture or Horticulture or related subjects from any government recognised university or institute with course content on plant protection and pesticides management; Provided that all retailers or dealers possessing a valid licence without the prescribed qualification as on the date of publication of these rules as amended by the Insecticides (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 shall be allowed a period of two years to comply with the said qualifications: Provided further that the existing licensee of pesticides, who are more than forty-five years of age and who have been running their trade either themselves or have inherited with cumulative period of experience of more than ten years as on the date of publication of these rules as amended by the Insecticides (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 and the annual turn over is less than Rs. Five Lakh are exempted for the aforesaid rule for a period of licenceship continuing in their name." 4. Five Lakh are exempted for the aforesaid rule for a period of licenceship continuing in their name." 4. The petitioner is a registered society of traders, who are in the business of selling of fertilizers, seeds and agricultural medicines, namely, insecticides and pesticides. 5. The Act was enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent the risk to human beings or animals and matters connected therewith. Section 13 of the Act provides that any person desirous to manufacture or to sell, stock or exhibit any insecticide, may make an application to the licensing officer for the grant of licence. In terms of Section 36 of the Act, the Central Government has framed the Insecticides Rules, 1971. The amendment carried on 1.2.17 is subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of amendment, minimum educational qualification is prescribed for the purpose of grant and/or renewal of insecticides licence, which is arbitrary and affects the vested rights of the members of the petitioner Association. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgments of Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and another v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others, (1983) 2 SCC 33 , and Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy and others, (2011) 9 SCC 286 to contend that the vested rights cannot be taken away by virtue of amendment in the Rules. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present petition. 9. The Act deals with the manufacture, sale and storage of insecticides which are poisonous and require to be handled with great care and caution. The Rules as originally framed did not have any educational qualification for grant of licence. Such condition was incorporated on 5.11.15, but subsequently, such clause has been substituted on 1st of February, 2017 wherein, all licensees have been mandated either to obtain Diploma or Degree in Agriculture or Horticulture or related subjects from any Government recognised university or institute with course content on plant protection and pesticides management within a period of two years. Such condition was incorporated on 5.11.15, but subsequently, such clause has been substituted on 1st of February, 2017 wherein, all licensees have been mandated either to obtain Diploma or Degree in Agriculture or Horticulture or related subjects from any Government recognised university or institute with course content on plant protection and pesticides management within a period of two years. It is also contemplated that if the licensee is unable to possess a Diploma or a Degree, then such licensee can engage/employ a Degree or Diploma holder in terms of conditions prescribed in sub-rule (1A) of the Rules. Still further, the rule grants exemption to the licensees who are more than forty-five years of age, having experience of ten years and whose annual turnover is less than Rs. five lakh from obtaining the qualification of Degree or Diploma. 10. It is not disputed that conditions of eligibility to grant license falls within the power of Central Government in terms of section 36 of the Act. The legislature has taken care of small and marginal licensees and the licensees who are in trade for a long period. Such person have been granted exemption from either getting qualification of Diploma or Degree by themselves or engaging another person, but in respect of all other licensees, the educational qualifications have been published which will go a long way in stopping the misuse of insecticides and safer use of the insecticides by the consumers. 11. In case of Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others (supra), the question examined was that whether the members of Gujarat Panchayat Services were Government servants? In respect of such question, it was held that the Panchyat service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act is a civil service and the members of this service are Government servants. It was further held that it was a case of equation of posts, revision of pay scales with payment of salaries. The Court held that the legislature is competent to legislate with retrospective effect to take away or impair any vested right acquired under the existing laws but have to conform to the do's and don'ts of the Constitution so as to contravene the fundamental rights. 12. In case of B. Narasimha Reddy and others (supra), it is observed that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. 12. In case of B. Narasimha Reddy and others (supra), it is observed that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The Court held to the following effect:- "18. It is well-settled law that Article 14 forbids class legislation, however, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. Therefore, it is permissible in law to have class legislation provided the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. Law also permits a classification even if it relates to a single individual, if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him, and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself. It should be presumed that the legislature has correctly appreciated the need of its people and that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds. There is further presumption in favour of the legislature that legislation had been brought with the knowledge of existing conditions. The good faith on the legislature is to be presumed, but if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the Court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation. The law should not be irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as there must be nexus to the object sought to be achieved by it. (Vide Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 191 and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538 )." 13. The judgments referred to by the petitioner do not support the argument raised that the amendment affects any vested rights of the members of the petitioner-union. The right of the members of the petitioner is to carry the business of storage and sale of insecticides. The judgments referred to by the petitioner do not support the argument raised that the amendment affects any vested rights of the members of the petitioner-union. The right of the members of the petitioner is to carry the business of storage and sale of insecticides. Such rights have to be carried out in accordance with the conditions of licence granted for such purpose so as to regulate storage and/or sale of poisonous substance harmful to the health. If in such process, a condition is imposed so as to bring a trained person to oversee storage and sale of insecticides, it cannot be said to be affecting any vested rights of the dealers as it only puts a condition so as to regulate and control the sale of insecticides. 14. In the present case, the legislature has taken care of not rendering the licensees out of business. The additional qualifications have been imposed which are keeping in view the object of the Act and for proper regulation and control of the insecticides. The Rules have given two years' time to obtain Diploma, which is of one year duration. Even Degree Holder can be engaged. Such step would in fact generate employment as well. 15. We do not find any error in the amendment carried out which may warrant interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is dismissed.