Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Eligibility for promotion to the post of L.D.C. under the 1957 Rules was Secondary School Examination or its equivalent Examination recognised by the Government. Thereafter, under the amended rules, qualifications equivalent to Secondary School Examination were deleted from the rule relating to el igibility with the result that no person who did not possess Secondary School Examination certificate from the Rajasthan Secondary Education Board or University or Board established by law in India, was eligible for promotion to the post of L.D.C. with effect from June 28, 1985. All the petitioners had acquired the equivalent qualifications prior to June 28, 1985. They were not promoted till June 28, 1985 and the respondents expressed their inability to promote them after June 28, 1985, applying the amended Rules.

31. From the case law discussed above, it is clear that a rule can be amended retrospectively, but such retrospective effect cannot be allowed to take away vested rights of citizens. It has also not been disputed before us that the amended rule would apply to vacancies which arise after the date on which the amending notification was issued. The questions to be decided, therefore, are as to whether the amended qualification in the rule would apply to Class IV employees who had acquired the equivalent qualification prior to amendment of the rule, and as to whether a vested right is conferred on the petitioners on their acquiring the equivalent qualification at a time when the equivalent qualification was not deleted from the rules. The contention that all candidates who had acquired the equivalent qualifications prior to the amendment in the rules deleting the equivalent qualifications would be deemed to have acquired that qualification in the legitimate expectation that by acquiring that qualification, they would become eligible for promotion as that was the qualification then prescribed under the rules for promotion to the post of L.D.C., cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to show that any promise was held out by the respondents to the petitioners that they would be considered for promotion if they acquired the qualifications they have acquired. Moreover, if the contention is accepted, it would lead to absurd result as different candidates for; the same post at the same selection would be having different qualifications depending on the dates on which such qualifications were acquired. Thus, those who have acquired the same qualifications after the amendment in the rules would be ineligible but those who had acquired that qualification earlier to the amendment in the rules would be eligible.

32. It is also to be noted that these are not the cases of derecognition of a degree, diploma or certificate issued by a particular institution because of some fault on the part of the institution awarding the same. The cases of derecognition of particular institutions and consequently derecognition of the degrees, diplomas and certificates issued by such institutions have to be distinguished from service matters in which certain qualifications are deleted from the rules. Removing or deleting a qualification from eligibility criteria cannot be said to be derecognition of that qualification or a degree, diploma or certificate. It only means that the degree, diploma or certificate has ceased to be the eligibility qualification for a particular post. It does not take away from the candidate, the degree, diploma or certificate conferred by the institutions. For example, if the eligibility qualification for a particular post was earlier 'Graduate' and by amendment, it is raised to 'Post graduate', it does not mean that degree possessed by the candidates are derecognised. What it simply means is that the eligibility qualifications are enhanced and a higher qualification is now required. It is also to be taken into account that purpose behind amendment to the rule was not to derecognise any degree, diploma or certificate, it was only to delete certain qualifications from the eligibility criteria. This may be because of the changed situation in which the employer may find that candidates who have passed the Secondary School Examination from the Statutory Boards and Universities are available in sufficient numbers and it was not necessary to consider the candidates having equivalent qualifications. The respondents cannot be forced to accept equivalence of certain qualifications and to accept such equivalence for all times to come.

33. In the result, we conclude that there is no force in the contention of the petitioners that the amended qualifications shall not apply to them because they had acquired the equivalent qualifications prior to the amendment of the rules. In, our opinion, the amended rule and the qualifications will apply even to the candidates who have obtained the equivalent qualifications prior to the date of enforcement of amended rule. However, the amended qualifications shall not be applicable to the vacancies which had occurred prior to the date of enforcement of the amended rule and such vacancies shall be filled in in accordance with the qualifications prescribed as on the date of occurrence of vacancies. We, therefore, answer the reference accordingly. The petitions shall now be listed before appropriate Bench for decision in accordance with law in the light of this decision.