Holding

The Central Government cannot amend the Madras Port Trust regulations via a direction under Section 111; amendments must be effected under Section 124 and are prospective, rendering the High Court’s retrospective promotion order ultra vires.

Summary

The Madras Port Trust Employees (Appointment, Promotion etc.) Regulations, 2000 required a civil engineering degree for appointment as Executive Engineer, thereby excluding diploma holders from promotion. Diploma engineers, relying on Central Government recommendations for a 4:1 promotion ratio, sought judicial relief. The Madras High Court directed the Union of India to promote diploma holders retrospectively, but a review petition argued that the regulations, enacted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, could not be altered by a mere direction under Section 111. The Supreme Court held that the Central Government’s power under Section 111 cannot amend statutory regulations; any amendment must follow the procedure in Section 124 and has only prospective effect. Consequently, the High Court’s directions were ultra vires, the review petition was maintainable, and the appeals were allowed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Issues considered

The scope of the Central Government's power under Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 to amend regulations concerning qualifications and promotion.
Whether a High Court can direct retrospective promotion of diploma holders contrary to statutory regulations.
Whether amendments to the regulations must be made under Section 124 and are limited to prospective effect.
Whether the review petition filed by the appellants was maintainable.

Legislation cited

General Clauses Act
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963s. 106, s. 107, s. 108, s. 109, s. 110, s. 111, s. 123, s. 124, s. 28, s. 47H

Subjects

Major Port Trusts Actpromotiondiploma engineersexecutive engineerstatutory regulationscentral government powerSection 111Section 124retrospective effectadministrative lawstatutory interpretation

Judgment

~
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 916

. ,A.
A A. MANOHARAN Af{JD ORS.
. v.
. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1273-1276 Of 2008)
FEBRUARY .14, 2008
B
~
[S.B.SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
. ,._ ....
Service Law:
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - ss. 124, 111 and 47 H -
c Madras Port Trust Employees (Appointment, Promotion et9.)
Regulation 2000 - Regulation 5 - Appointment - Post of
Executive engineer - By amendment in the Regulations,
degree in civil engineering made necessary - Claim of
promotion to the post by Diploma Holders relying on the
D recommendations by Central Government and direction
sought for amendment in the Regulations - Granted by High ·~
Court - Held: Not correct - Administrative act must yield to a
statute - Regulation framed in terms of the statute must be
amended in accordance with the procedures laid down under
E the principal enactment :-- Statutory regulations were not
amended by Gsntral Government - Power of Central
Go'vernment to issue directions as contained ins. 111 cannot
be stretched to amend Regulations· - More so, Regulations
amended would have only prospective effect - Statutory laws.
F The Madras Port Trust Employees (Appointment,
Promotion etc.) Regulations, 1977 was made under the "'
\

Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The Regulations were
amended in the year 2000 and Regulation 5 provided that
for the appointment to the post of Executive Engineer,
G possession of a degree on Civil Engineering was
1,1ecessary. As a result, restriction was placed on the ~
promotional prospects of the Diploma Holders in
Engineering. Aggrieved employees file.d writ petition
seeking direction upon the appropriate government/
"
H 916
"
Iv
A. MANOHARAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA · 917
AND ORS.

authority to make amendments in the Regulations of 1963 A
Act making provisions for granting opportunities for
promotion to Diploma Engineers to the post of Executive
Engineers in the ratio of 4:1. The relief was sought on the
basis of the recommendations made by the Central
Government. The Madras Port Trust constituted a B
committee which made recommendations for grant of the
'". ~. benefit to the Diploma Holders. Union of India
communicated to the Trust that a common seniority list
was to be maintained for diploma holders and degree
holders once the two streams merged for promotion to c
higher cadres. Writ petition was accordingly amended.
The Single Judge of High Court held that as Diploma
Holders could be promoted to the post of Executive
Engineer in terms of recommendations of Central .
Government, it was not necessary to issue direction to
amend the Regulations. Thereafter, Writ appeal was filed D
and the same was allowed directing the respondent to
promote Diploma Holders with retrospective effect on
basis of common seniority. Thereafter, review application
was filed on the ground that the educational qualification
for holding post of Executive Engineers has been laid E
down by the Regulations, and no action could be taken
on basis of communication by the Central Government.
Appellant no.1 and Degree Engineers Association filed writ
petitions whereas some degree holders also filed review
applications with an application for grant of leave. The F
prayer of degree holders to file application for grant of
leave to file review petition was rejected. The writ petitions
were dismissed. Hence the present appeals.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: Section 124 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963
provides for approval of the regulations by the Central
Government. It must be published in the gazettee. It also .
provides for laying down the same before the Parliament.
Breach of some regulations attracts penal provisi.0".1. H
)---
.....
1--

918 SUPREME, COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. )--
I.

J
,;. ,,...
~

A Power of the Central Government to direct any Board to
make any regulations is confined to the. matters specified .,._
in Section 28 or Section 76 or Section 123 or to amend
any regulation within such period as the Central
Government may specify in this behalf. No regulation
B exi~ts enabling the Government to issue any direction in
relation to regulation governing salaries ·and allowance
payable to and other conditions of service of officers and . f· .,,
,.--
employees of the authority. In the event such a direction · l

is not followed, the Central Government may take recourse
c only to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 124 of
the 1963 Act. [Para 13] [926-H; 927-A, B & CJ
1.2 Statutory regulations have not been amended by
the Central Government. The Central Government does
) )
not have any power in regard thereto. Under the 1963
D Act all authorities specified therein are statutory
auth9rities. They are to act within the four corners thereof. ~
[Para 14] [927 -E]
>-
Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad and Ors. v. State of I
\
Maharashtra and Ors. 2007 (2) SCC 588 - relied on
E
1.3 An administrative act must yield to a statute. Once
a regulation has been framed, in terms of the provisions
of the General Clauses Act, the same must be amended
in accordance with the procedures laid down under the
F principal enactment. Even assuming ·that the Central ~
Government had the jurisdiction to direct the authority "
to amend the regulations, it was required to be carried
out in accordance with law, and, thus all requisite
procedure$ laid down therefor were required to be ...
[
fulfilled. [Para 14] [927-G & H; 928-A]
G
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. AIR ~
1967 SC 1910; D.D.A. and Ors. v. Joginder S. Monga and
Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 297; Vasu Dev Singh and Ors. JI. Union of
India and Ors. 2006 (11) SCALE 108, Kera/a Samsthana
H Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State. of Kera/a and Ors:· 2006 (4) )
~
A. MANOHARAN AND ORS, v. UNION OF INDIA 919
-... AND ORS.
SCC 327; State of Kera/a and Ors. v. Unni and Anr;. 2007 (2) . A
SCC 365; l:Jnion of India and Another v. Central Electrical and
Mechanical Engineering Service (CE&MES) Group 'A'_(Direct
-..I
Recruits) Association, CPWD and Ors. (2007) 13 SCALE 23
- relied on
1.4 The power of the Central Government to issue B
directions as coRtained in Section 111 of the 1963 Act
..- ~. .cannof be stretched ·to amend the regulations. Power
must be exercised by the Central Government only in
regard to the administration of the trust. Such a power
to issue direction must be construed strictly. [Para 15] c
· [928-F]
Ramana Daya.ram Shetty v. The International Airport
--1
Authority of India and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 1628; Harjit Singh
and Anr. v. The State of Punjab and Anr. 2007 (3) SCALE 553;
D
Asnoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors. 2007 (2) SCC 640; Poonam Verma and Ors. v. ·
Delhi Development Authority 2007 (14) SCALE 485 - relied ·
on
1.5 Regulations have been amended only with effect E
from 11.08.2004. · It would have a prospective effect. It
cannot be applied retrospectively. Any vacancy which has
arisen prior to coming into force of the said amended
regulation must be filled up in terms of the law as was
J existing prior thereto. [Para 16] [928-H; 929-A] F
)"
State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and Ors. 1997 (10) SCC
419 - relied on
1.6 High Court committed a serious error in issuing
. the impugned directions. It also committed a serious error
G
in holding that the Review Petition was not maintainable
at. the instance of the appellants. [Para 17] [929-B]
~
J. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
1273-1276 of 2008 .
H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2003 of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. Nos. 4573 and 4774
of 2003 _and C.M.P. No. 13438 of 2001 in Review Application
S.R. Nos. 54979 of 2001.
K.V. Viswanathan, ·K.v. Venkataraman, Anup Kumar,
B Rajeev Kumar Singh and K.V. Vijaykumar for the Appellants.
V. Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad, Revathy Raghavan, Varuna ,._
Bhandari Gugnani, V.K. Mehta, D.S. Mahra (for B. Krishna
.
., ;--
)

Prasad), Subramanium Prasad and V.G. Pragasam for the •
C Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
';
~
2. The Parliament of India enacted the Major Port Trusts.
0 Act, 1963 (for short "the 1963 Act"). It was preceded by several '
b.
provincial Acts; one of them being the Madras Outports Landing
and Shipping Fees.Act, 1885. Regulations were framed under
the provincial Acts. They were saved under the 1963 Act.
' Madras Port Trust 5.{nployees (Appointment, Promotion,
E etc.) Regulations, 1977 was made under Section 28 of the 1963
Act. It was amended in the year 2000 by the Madras Port Trust
Employees (Appointment, Promotion, etc.) Regulation 2000.
Regulation 5 read with Schedule thereof provides that insofar
as the appointment to the post of Executive Engineer is
F concerned, possession of a degree in Civil Engineering is
imperative. It was amended with the approval of the Central
Government in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the
· 1963 Act. Regulations, therefore, have statutory force. They have
been duly published in the Gazettee. Not only approval of the
Central Government was obtained, they .were also laid before
G both Houses of the Parliament. 1
I-
I

3. Some of the employees were Diploma holders. They
formed an ·Association known as Ctieo'nai Port Trust Diploma
Engineers' Association. In view of embargo placed by the
H Regulations on t~eir promotional prospects as the educational
A. MANOHARAN. AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 921
..... AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
..._ qualification for holding of the post of Executive Engineers had A
been laid down, they made a representation.
A writ petition came to be filed before the Madras High
Court which was marked as Writ Petition No. 11938 of 1993. A
prayer was made therein for a direction upon the appropriate
government/ authority to make amendments in the Regulations B
of the 1963 Act in terms whereof provisions were required to
,.. 4 be made for grant of opportunities for promotion to the Diploma
Engineers to the post of Executive Engineers in the ratio of 4: 1,
i.e., as against four posts of Executive Engineer from Graduate
Engineers; one post mµst be reserved for the Diploma holders. c
Such a prayer was made relying on or on the basis of the
recommendations made by the Central Government in terms of
its letter dated 8.06.1991; pursuant whereto the Madras Port
Trust constituted a Committee. Recommendations were also
made by the said Committee for grant of such benefit in favour D
of the Diploma holders. A communication was again made by
the Union of India to the Trust on 28.06.1994 providing that a
. common ·seniority list should be maintained for diploma holders
and degree holders once the two streams merged, i.e., Diploma
holders and Degree holders come on a common platform by E
occupying the same post.
The prayer made in the writ petition was amended. A
learned Single Judge of the High Coli rt opined that as Diploma
holders could be promoted to the Post of Executive Engineer in
terms of the recommendations of the Central Government, it F
was not necessary to issue a direction to amend the Regulations.
However, in regard to the ~ther prayers made in the said writ
petition, as for example, for grant of promotion~, an observation
was made therein that an administrative representation therefor
should be considered. G
):- A writ appeal preferred thereagainst was allowed directing
the respondent no. 1 to promote the Diploma holders with
retrospective effective on th~,basis of commo.n seniority.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union H
-~

922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.

.....
A of India before the High Court conceded to· the contentions >.
raised on behalf of the Diploma ·holders relying on or on the
basis of the said communications of the Central Government.
We may notice that the 'Degree holders were not made
. parties to the said writ proceedings.
B
A review application was filed inter alia contending that as
educational qualification for holding the post of Executive . *" ~
Engineers has been laid down by the Regulations, it should be
clarified that no action can be taken on the basis of the said
c communication by the Central Government.
Appellant No. 1 herein and the Chennai Port Trust Degree
Engineers' Association also filed writ petitions before the High
Court bearing Writ Petition Nos. 4573 and 4 774 of 2003
respectively.
D
5. Some of the Degree holders also filed a review
application together with an application for grant of leave therefor.
In the said review proceedings, a letter dated 24.12.2002
issued by the Central Government was produced .
•
E
The Division Bench of the High Court made a summary
thereof stating:
"Firstly, the diploma-holders could be promoted up to
. the· 1evel of Executive Engineers;
F Secondly, there could be a limited allocation of posts
for diploma holders in the ratio of 4:1 or 5:1 in relation to
graduate-engineers;
Thi.rdly, Class Ill posts in the Engineer cadre were to
G be redesignated without any change in their duties and
without any financial implications;
~
Fourthly, common ·seniority list was to be maintained
for degree and diploma engineers once the two streams ..,
I

merge for
. promotion to the higher cadres; and .
H
t

A. MANOHARAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 923
AND ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
../ _.. Lastly, regarding the ratio of 4: 1 or 5: 1 between A
degree-engineers and diploma-engineers whenever the
two streams merge, no ratio system would exist meaning
thereby, that after the merger i.e., after the two category of
engineers come on the same platform, the promotion has
to be made on the basis of common seniority list." B
It also referred to the following paragraph of the said letter:
//. ~
"These guidelines were in vogue till 2000 when these
instructions were kept in abeyance by letter No. C-13019/
11/96/PE-1 dated 8.3.2000 on the ground that cadre c
restructuring of degree/diploma holders was under
consideration. Cadre restructuring proposal involving
upgradation of some posts and financial implications, could
not be finalized as it needs consultation/concurrence of
Ministry of Finance. Thus as on date there are no clear D
instructions on the subject of promotional avenue to the
diploma holders. Decision on cadre restructuring will be
implemented with all its consequences. However, in the
mean time we need to provide guidelines as promotion of
diploma /degree holders, if due, should not wait till the
cadre restructuring is finalized. In the circumstances, it E
has been decided to withdraw this Ministry's letter No.C-
13019/11 /96/PE-ll dated 8.3.2000 and restore the positio~n..-
available before 8.3.2000. The ports are acgprdingly
requested to take necessary action in the matter."
F
6. The prayer of the Degree holders - Executive Engineers
to file the application for grant of leave to file review petition,
was, however, refused to be considered holding that it has not
been shown as to how individually they are prejudiced.
7. So far as the writ petition filed by the appellants is G
~ concerned, the High Court rejected their contention that the
Government of India did not have any power to provide for
promotional avenues for the diploma holders contrary to the
A
Regulations and as such the said communications were ultra
'
vires, stating: H
~
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A "The argument must necessarily fail. In the first place, it
,._ .
cannot be forgotten that the regulations are restricted only
to the Madras Port Trust. They were originally framed under
the Major Port Trust Act and more particularly under Sec
28 thereof. Though the regulations originally framed for
B the Madras Port Trust are saved under Sec. 133 (20) (C)
of the Major Port Trusts Act, the fact rE~mains that they
would apply only to Madras Port Trust. Where we see the ~ °ii
other provisions, it is obvious that the Central Government
has a plenary power over all the Major Port trusts, they
c being Port Trusts of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras in
respect of which there were separate enactments earlier, ~

which separate enactments stood repealed by the present
Act. Under the provisions of Sec. 106, the Board has to
submit the Central Government a detailed report of the
administration of the port during the preceding year.
D
Section 107 ordains every Board to submit the statements
of its income and expenditure every year. Under Sec. 108, 'f--
the Central Government has a power to order a local survey
or examination of any works of the Board or the intended
site of such port. The expenditure of which has to be borne
E by the Board. Under Sec. 109, the Central Government
has the power to restore or complete the work at the cost
of the Board. Sec. 110 gives a complete control to the
Central Government as the Board could be superseded
when it is unable to perform the duties imposed by or
F· under the provisions of the Act. Subsection (b) provides
that if the Board has persistently made default of the duties
imposed upon it by or under the provisions of this Act or
if its financial position has deteriorated the Board can be
superseded by the Central Government. Before
G ~uperseding, however, the Board has to be given a show
cause notice. Under Sec. 110 (3) (b) and (c) the Central -:I·
Government has the power to reconstitute the Board by
fresh appointment and fresh elections."
.
H
8. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing on
--
~
._
I

A. MANOHARAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 925
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
. , . ,A behalf of the appellants, submitted that the High Court committed A
a serious error in arriving at the said findings insofar as it failed
to take into consideration the core legal issue, viz., the power of
the Central Government to issue a direction in terms of Section
111 of the 1963 Act vis-a-vis the Regulations making power, in
their correct perspective. B

~
.. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned
judgment.
10. The 1963 Act was enacted to make provision for c
constitution of port authorities for certain major ports in India
and to vest the administration, control and management of such
ports in such authorities and for matters connected therewith.
Section 4 7H of the 1963 Act reads as under:
D
"47H - Officers and employees of the Authority
(1) The Authority may appoint officers and such other
employees as it considers necessary for the efficient
discharge of its functions under this Act
(2) The salary and allowances payable to and the other E
conditions of service of the officers and other employees
of the Authority appointed under sub-section (7) shall be
such as may be specified by regulations."

~
Chapter IX of the 1963 Act provides for supervision and F
control of the Central Government.
Section 106 of the 1963 Act provides for. filing of
administrative report. Submission of statements of income and
expenditure to the Central Government is provided for under
Section 107. Power of the Central Government to order survey G
~ or examination of works of the Board is contained in Section
108 thereof, whereas power of the Central Government to
-I restore or complete works at the cost of the Board is contained
in Section 109 of the 1963 Act. Supersession of the: Board is
also within the domain of the Central Government as: provided H
~

926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

_._ ,,.....,.__
A for in Section 11 O of the 1963 Act. Similarly, the power to
supersede the authority is contained in Section 11 OA.
Section 111 of the 1963 Act which confers a power on the
Ce.ntral Government to issue directions 'to the Board must be
examined on the backdrop of the aforenoticed statutory
B provisions. It reads as under:
"111 "" Power of Central Government to issue directions to ~- '
Board
(1) Without prejudice to .the foregoing provisions of this
c Chapter, the Authority and every Board shall, in the ,..
discharge of its functions under this Act be bound by such ,,.
directions on questions of policy as the Central Government
may give in writing from time to time;
Provided that the Authority o~ the Board, as the case may
D
• be, shall be given opportunity to express its views before '!'-
any direction is given under this sub-section.
(2) The decision of the Central Government whether a
question i·s one of policy or not shall be final."
E 11. Indisputably Chapter XI of the 1963 Act provides for
power of the Central Government to make rules for the purposes
t,
specified therein, wherewith we are not concerned.
12. The Board, however, has been conferred with a power
F to make Regulations under Section 123 of the .1963 Act in regard ~ •
to the matters specified therein. Sec~ion 123A of the 19~3 Act
empowers the. authority to make regulations consistent with the
provisions of the 1963 Act inter alia for the purposes of "the
salaries and allowances payable to and the other conditions of
service of officers and other employees of the Authority" under
G
Sub-section (2) of Section 47H of the 1963 Act. -1
13. Section 124 of the 1963 Act provides for approval of
the regulations by the Central Government. It must be published
·in the gazettee. It also provides for laying down the same before
H the Parliament. Breacn of some regulations attracts penal
+.
(

A. MANOHARAN AND ORS. v.. UNION OF INDIA 927
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.}

I .... provision. A
Power of the Central Government to direct any Board to
make any regulations is confined to the matters specified in
Section 28 or Section 76 or Section 123 or to amend any
regulation w!thin such period as the Central Government may
B
specify in this behalf.
~
). No regulation exists enabling the Government to issue any
direction in relation to regulation governing salaries and
allowance payable to and other conditions of service of officers
and employees of the authority. In any event, in the event such a c
direction is not followed, the Central Gove·rnment may take
recourse only to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section
124 of the 1963 Act, which reads as under:
"(2) No such regulation other than a regulation made under
section 28 shall be approved by the Central. Government D
until the same has been published by the Board for two .
weeks successively in the Official Gazette and until
fourteen days have expired from the date on which the
same had been first published in that Gazette."
14. Statutory regulations have not been amended by the E
Central Government. The Central Government, as noticed
hereinbefore, does not have any power in regard thereto. Urider
the 1963 Act all authorities specified therein are statutory
authorities. They are to act within the four corners thereof. [See
Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad and Others v. State of F
Maharashtra and Others [(2007) 2 SCC 588]
The legal principle that an administrative act must yield to
a statute is no longer res integra. Once a regulation has been
framed, in terms of the provisions of the General Clauses Act,
G
·')': the same must be amended in accordance with the procedures
laid down under the principal enactment. Even assuming that
the Central Government had the jurisdiction to direct the authority
to amend the regulations, it was required to be carried out in
accordance with law, and, thus all requisite procedures laid down
H
~

928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 2 S.C.R.

A therefor were required to be fulfilled. >
...
[See Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
AIR 1967 SC 1910, D.D.A. and Ors. v. Joginder S. Monga
and Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 297, Vasu Dev Singh and Ors. v. Union ' .
of India and Ors. 2006 (11) SCALE 108, Kera/a Samsthana
B Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kera/a and Ors. (2006) 4
sec 327 and State of Kera/a and Ors. v. Unni and Anr. (2007) -~ :~
2 sec 365]
Recently in Union of India and Another v. Central Electrical
c & Mechanical Engineering Service (CE&MES) Group 'A'
(Direct Recruits) Association, CPWD & ?rs. [(2007) 13 SCALE
23], this Court held; .
"1 O; It is now a well settled principle of law that an executive
order must be passed in conformity with the- Rules. Power
D of the State Government to issue executive instructions is
confined to filling up of the gaps or covering the area
which otherwise has not been covered by the existing
Rules. See Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State· of Rajasthan &
Anr. [AIR 1967 SC 1910] and D.D.A. and Ors. Vs. Joginder
E · S. Monga and Ors. [(2004) 2 sec 297]. Such office orders
must be subservient to the statutory rules."
15. The power of the Central Government to issue
directions as contained in Section 111 of the 1963 Act cannot
be stretched to amend the regulations. Power must be
F exercised by the Central Government only in regard to the
administration of the trust. Such a power to issue direction must
be construed strictly. [See Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The
International Airport Authority of India and Others AIR 1979
SC 1628: (1979) 3 SCC 489, Harjit Singh & Anr. v. The State
G of Punjab & Anr. 2007 (3) SCALE 553, Ashoka Smokeless
Coal India (P) Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others, --:(-
(2007) 2 SCC 640 and Poonam Verma & Ors; v. Delhi
Deyelopment Authority [2007 (14) SCALE 485]. ~
·.. 16. Furthermore, Regulations have been amend~d only
H
A. MANOHARAN AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 929,. I

AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

with effect from 11.08.2004. It would have a prospective effect. A
It cannot be applied retrospectively. Any vacancy which has
arisen prior to coming into force of the said amended regulation
must b~ filled up in terms of the law as was existing prior thereto.
[State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and Others (1997) 10 SCC
419, para 8] B
17. The High Court, therefore, committed a serious error
in issuing the impugned directions. It also committed a serious
error in holding that the Review Petition was not maintainable
at the instance of the appellants.
c
18. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
judgments cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly.
The appeals are allowed with costs payable by the Madras Port
Trust. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.
N.J. Appeal allowed. D