T. NARASIMHULU & ORS.versusSTATE OF A. P. & ORS.

                        [2010] 6 S.C.R. 1028


A                    T. NARASIMHULU & ORS.
                                   v.
                      STATE OF A. P. & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 8116 of 2003)

                            MAY 11, 2010
B
         [MARKANDEY KATJU AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

         Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 309 - Rule relating
    to appointment of Forest Rangers as Assistant Conservators
C   - Amendments to the rule, in exercise of powers conferred
    under the proviso to Article 309 - Mode of publication of rules
    made under the proviso to Article 309 - Held A rule made
    under the proviso to Article 309 has the same effect as an
    Act of appropriate Legislature regulating the recruitment and
O   conditions of service of persons appointed to public services
    and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any
    State - Hence, even if Article 309 does not say that the rules
    made under the proviso thereto are required to be published,
    these rules are required to be published just as any other Act
E   passed by the appropriate Legislature is required to be
    published so that the persons affected by the rules or the Act
    are aware of the rule or the Act - Where the Jaw prescribes
    the mode of publication of the Jaw to become operative, the
    law must be published in that mode only, but where the mode
F   of publication of the law is not prescribed by the law, such law
    should be published in some usual or recognized mode to
    bring it to the knowledge of all persons concerned - Andhra
    Pradesh General Clauses Act - s. 21 - Service Law -
    Recruitment - Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1965
G   -r.2.

       Service Law - Seniority - Andhra Pradesh Forest
  Service Rules, 1965 - r.2 - Amendments made to r.2 with
  retrospective effect - Validity of -Challenged on ground that
  it adversely affected inter-se seniority and thus took away the
H                               1028
                                                       \



    T. NARASIMHULU & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. & ORS.1029


    vested or accrued rights of employees - Held: Challenge not       A
    tenable - Seniority of a Government servant is not a vested
    right - An Act of the State Legislature or a rule made under
    Article 309 of the Constitution can retrospectively affect the
    seniority of a Government servant - Constitution of India, 1950
    - Article 309.                                                    B

         On 29.05.1995, the Government of Andhra Pradesh
    issued G.0.Ms. No. 35 adding a proviso to Rule 2 of the
    Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1965 that Forest
    Range Officers who secured first and second ranks in              C
    their batches for Honours in Ranger's Training Course
    shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant
    Conservators and this G.O.Ms. No. 35 was published in

-   the Gaz~tte of the Andhra Pradesh on 01.06.1995. On
    03.07.1995, the Andhra Pradesh Government issued
    G.O.Ms. No.51 amending this proviso to Rule 2 of the              D
    Forest Service Rules so as to provide that Forest Range
    Officers who secured Honours in their batches in the
    Rangers Training Course shall be eligible for
    appointment as Assistant Conservators and this G.O.Ms.
    No.51 was published in the Gazette of Andhra Pradesh              E
    on 12.09.1996.

        The appellants who were working as Assistant
    Conservators of Forests challenged the amendments to
    Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules by G.O.Ms. No.35 am!           F
    G.0.Ms. No.51.

         It was submitted by the appellants that a bare perusal
    of the G.0.Ms. 35 dated 2~ JS.1995 and G.O.Ms. No.51
    dated 03.07.1995 would show that the Government
    Orders directing that the amendments shall be deemed              G
    to have come into force from 08.04.1986 was not part of
    the Notification which was published in the Gazette; that
    the amendments by G.0.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 are
    amendments to Rule 2 made under the proviso to Article
                                                                      H
    1030   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2010] 6 S.C.R.


A 309 of the Constitution and although the proviso to Article
  309 of the Constitution does not prescribe any specific
  m()de of publication of the Rules made thereunder, the
  amendments are required to be published in the same
  manner in which the Rules made under an Act are
B published. The appellants submitted that although the
  amendments made to Rule 2 by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51
  were published by a notification in the Official Gazette,
  the portion of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. NOs. 35
  and 51 directing that the amendments would have
c retrospective effect from 08.04.1986 was not published in
  the notifications in the Official Gazette and the legal
  consequence thereof is that the amendments to Rule 2
  made by G.0.Ms. NOs. 35 and 51 would have only
  prospective effect, or in other words, will not have
  retrospective effect from 08.04.1986.
0
       Dismissing the appeals, the Court

       HELD:1.1. This Court is unable to accept that the
  portion of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms. Nos.35 and
E 51 directing that the amendments to Rule 2 of the Andhra
  Forest Service Rules would have retrospective effect
  from 08.04.1986 were required to be published in the
  Official Gazette. [Para 5] (1037-C-D]

F     1.2. A plain reading of G.0.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 would
  show that the amendments to Rule 2 of the Forest
  Service Rules made therein are in exercise of powers
  conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the
  Constitution. Article 309 of the Constitution would show
  that under the main provision of the Article, Acts of
G appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment and
  conditions of service of persons appointed to public
  services and posts in connection with the affairs of Union
  or of any State. The proviso to Article 309 of the
  Constitution, however, states that until provision in that
H
T. NARASIMHULU & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. & ORS.1031


behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate              A
Legislature under this Article, the President or the
Governor, as the case may be, or any such person as
they may direct, make rules regulating the recruitment
and conditions of service of persons appointed, to such
services and posts in connection with the affairs of the          B
Union or of any State respectively. The proviso to Article
309 further says that "any rules so made shall have effect
subject to the provisions of any such Act" made under
Article 309 of the Constitution. The words "any rules so
made shall have effect" signify that the rules will become        c
operative subject only to the provisions of the
Constitution and the provisions of any Act made by the
appropriate Legislature under Article 309 of the
Constitution. Hence, Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh
General Clauses Act, which provides that where in any
                                                                  0
Act, or any rule passed under any Act, it is directed that
any order, notification or other matter shall be notified or
published, such notification or publication shall, unless
the Act otherwise provides, be deemed to be duly made
 if it is published in the Official Gazette, has no application
whatsoever to a rule made under the proviso to Article            E
309 of the Constitution. [Para 5] [1037-C-D; 1038-B-F]

     1.3. In the present case, the amendments to Rule 2
of the Forest Service Rules by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51
with retrospective effect are sought to be made in                F
exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution and not in exercise of any power
conferred by any Act made by the State Legislature and
the Constitution or any appropriate Act made under
Article 309 of the Constitution does not prescribe any            G·
mode of publication of rules made under the proviso to
Article 309. This is not to say that rules made under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are not required
to be published at all. A rule made under the proviso to
                                                                  H
    1032   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A Article 309 of the Constitution has the same effect as an
  Act of appropriate Legislature regulating the recruitment
  and conditions of service of persons appointed to public
  services and posts in connection with the affairs of the
  Union or of any State. Hence, even if Article 309 of the
B Constitution does not say that the rules made under the
  proviso thereto are required to be published, these rules
  are required to be published just as any other Act passed
  by the appropriate Legislature is required to be published
  so that the persons affected by the rules or the Act are
C aware of the rule or the Act. [Paras 6 and 7) [1039-0-H]

       1.4. Where the law prescribes the mode of publication
  of the law to become operative, the law must be
  published in that mode only, but where the mode of
  publication of the law is not prescribed by the law, such
D law should be published in some usual or recognized
  mode to bring it to the knowledge of all persons
  concerned. In the present case, the contention of the
  appellants before the Tribunal or the High Court was not
  that the Government Order in G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 that
E the amendment to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules
  would have retrospective effect from 08.04.1986 was
  never made known by any reasonable mode, but that it
  was not published in the Official Gazette. This contention
  of the appellants has no merit. [Para 8) [1040-G-H;
F 1041-B]

       I. T. C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards & Anr. v. Manda/
    Revenue Officer, A. P. & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 634,
    distinguished.

G       Har/av. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1951 SC 467; State
    of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George AIR 1965 SC 722,
    relied on.

       Chandra Prakash Tiwari & Ors. v. Shakuntala Shukla &
H Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 127, referred to.
T. NARASIMHULU & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. & ORS.1033

    2. The submission made by the respondent that             A
since the seniority of the appellants had been adversely
affected by amendments to Rule 2 by G.O.Ms. NOs. 35
and 51 made with retrospective effect from 08.04.1986 1
the amendments take away the vested rights or accrued
rights and are liable to be struck down by the Court, is      B
also without merit. Seniority of a Government servant is
not a vested right·iand an Act of the State Legislature or
a rule made urider Article 309 of the Constitution can
retrospectively affect the seniority of a Government
servant. [Para 9 & 12) [1041-G-H; 1044-F-G]                   c
    S. S. Bola & Ors. v. B. D. Sardana & Ors. (1997) 8 SCC
522, relied on.

    Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah
& Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 623, referred to.                        D

     3. As regards the further submission that the
amendment to Rule 2 by G.0.Ms. No. 51 only provides
that Forest Range Officers, who secured honours in their
batches in the Rangers Training Course, would be              E
deputed for training to join two years course of the State
Forest Service College and does not provide for
appointment of such Forest Range Officers as Assistant
Conservators of Forests, it is clear from the title of Rule
2 that the rule provides for appointment and not for
                                                              F
training. The main provision of the rule provides for
appointment of four categories of officers of the State
Forest Services, namely, Chief Conservator,
Conservators, Deputy Conservators and Assistant
Conservators. The proviso to Rule 2 as amended by
G.O.Ms. No. 51 further provides that Forest Range             G
Officers who secured Honours in their batches in the
Rangers' Training Course shall be eligible for
appointment as Assistant Conservators and after
deputation to join the two years course of State Forest
Service Colleges run by the Government of India, will be      H
    1034   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 6 S.C.R.


A treated as direct recruits to the post of Assistant
  Conservators. There is, therefore, no scope for taking a
  view that the proviso to Rule 2 as amended by G.O.Ms.
  No. 51 is not a rule relating to appointment of Forest
  Rangers as Assistant Conservators. [Para 14) [1045-E-H;
B 1046-A-C]

                        Case Law Reference:
        (1996) 6 sec 634           distinguished        Para 3
        (2002) 6 sec 121           referred to          Para 4
c
        AIR 1951 SC 467            relied on            Para 7
        AIR 1965 SC 722            relied on            Para 7
        (1997) 6 sec 623           referred to          Para 9
D
        (1997) s sec 522           relied on            Para 10

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    8116 of 2003.

E                                WITH

    C.A. Nos. 8082, 8083 & 8088 of 2003.

      L.N. Rao Rakesh Dwivedi, P.S. Patwalia, Praveen K.
  Pandey, D. Mahesh Babu, P.V. Ramana, T.N. Rao, C.S.N.
F Mohan Rao, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, B. Suyodhan, Amar Pal,
  Bharat J. Joshi, Wasay Khan, D. Bharathi Reddy, C.K.
  Sucharita, N. Das, T.V. George, Ajay Singh, Tushar Bakshi, T.V.
  Ratnam, for the appearing parties.

G       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. These are appeals against the
  judgment and order dated 05.04.2002 of the Division Bench
  of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a batch of Writ Petitions
  Nos. 14689 of 2001, 25322 of 2001, 24420 of 1997 and Writ
H Petition Ncr.22926 of 2001 (for short 'the impugned judgment').
T. NARASIMHULU & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. & ORS.1035
              [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

      2.The relevant facts very briefly are that on 28.07.1983 the   A
Government of India sent a Circular to all the State
Governments to depute the Forest Range Officers who have
passed the Forest Ranger Course with honours for admission
to two year course at the State Forest College for the post of
Assistant Conservator of Forest. In response to the Circular,        B
the Government of Andhra Pradesh sent the Forest Range
Officers, who had secured honours in Forest Ranger Course,
on deputation to the State Forest College for training as
Assistant Conservators of Forests during the period
08.04.1986 to 23.06.1994. On 13.11.1994, the Andhra Pradesh          c
Administrative Tribunal delivered a judgment in O.A. No.3258
of 1994 holding that the deputation of Forest Range Officers,
namely, Sri B. Narayan Reddy and Sri T. P. Thimma Reddy,
for training as Assistant Conservators of Forests was contrary
to the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1965 (for short
                                                                     0
'the Forest Service Rules'). On 29.05.1995, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 35 adding a proviso to
Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules that Forest Range Officers
who secured first and second ranks in their batches for Honours
in Ranger's Training Course shall be eligible for appointment        E
as Assistant Conservators and this G.O.Ms. No. 35 was
published in the Gazette of the Andhra Pradesh on 01.06.1995.
On 03.07 .1995, the Andhra Pradesh Government issued
G.O.Ms. No.51 amending this proviso to Rule 2 of the Forest
Service Rules so as to provide that Forest Range Officers who
secured Honours in their batches in the Rangers Training             F
Course shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant
Conservators and this G.0.Ms. No.51 was published in the
Gazette of Andhra Pradesh on 12.09.1996. The appellants who
were working as Assistant Conservators of Forests challenged
the amendments to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules by              G
G.O.Ms. No.35 and G.O.Ms. No.51 before the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal and thereafter before the High Court.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High
Court has dismissed the Writ Petitions.
                                                                     H
    1036    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A          3. Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao , learned counsel appearing for
    the appellants in Civil Appeal No.8116 of 2003, submitted that
    a bare perusal of the G.0.Ms. 35 dated 29.05.1995 and
    G.O.Ms. No.51 dated 03.07.1995 would show that the
    Government Orders directing that the amendments shall be
B   deemed to have come into force from 08.04.1986 was not part
    of the Notification which was published in the Gazette. He
    submitted that the amendments by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 are
    amendments to Rule 2 made under the proviso to Article 309
    of the Constitution and although the proviso to Article 309 of
c   the Constitution does not prescribe any specific mode of
    publication of the Rules made thereunder, the amendments are
    required to be published in the same manner in which the Rules
    made under an Act are published. He referred to Section 21
    of the Andhra Pradesh Ge.neral Clauses Act which provides
    that even where an Act or Rule provides for publication merely
0
    but does not say expressly that it shall be published in the
    Official Gazette, it would be deemed to have been duly made
    if it is published in the Official Gazette. He cited a decision of
    this Court in /. T. C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards & Anr. v.
    Manda/ Revenue Officer, A. P. & Ors. ((1996) 6 SCC 634] in
E   support of this submission. He vehemently submitted that
    although the amendments made to Rule 2 by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35
    and 51 were published by a notification in the Official Gazette,
    the portion of the Government Order in G.O.Ms. NOs. 35 and
    51 directing that the amendments would have retrospective
F   effect from 08.04.1986 was not published in the notifications
    in the Official Gazette. He argued that the legal consequence
    is that the amendments to Rule 2 made by G.O.Ms. NOs. 35
    and 51 would have only prospective effect. In other words, the
    amendments by G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 would have effect
G   from 19.05.1995 and 03.07.1995 respectively and will not have
    retrospective effect from 08.04.1986.

      4. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for
  REispondent Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 (the private
H respondents}, in reply, submitted that Article 309 of the
T. NARASIMHULU & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. & ORS.1037
              [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
Constitution does not prescribe any specific mcide of A
publication for the rules made under the Article and all that is
required is that there should be some reasonable mode of
publication so that the affected parties are made aware of the
factum of promulgation of the rules. He further submitted that
in Chandra Prakash Tiwari & Ors. v. Shakuntala Shukla & • B
Ors. [(2002) 6 SCC 127], this Court has held that where the
parties were actually aware of the fact that the rules have been
published, the argument that the rules were not actually
published is a hyper-technical one.

     5. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr.
                                                                     c
Nageshwar Rao that portion of the Government Orders in
G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 directing that the amendments to Rule
2 therein would have retrospective effect from 08.04.1986 were
required to be published in the Official Gazette ..A plain reading
of G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51, copy of which has been annexed,           D
would show that the amendments to Rule 2 of the Forest
Service Rules made therein are in exercise of powers conferred
by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Article 309 of
the Constitution is extracted hereinbelow:
                                                                     E
    "309. Recruitment and conditions of service of persons
    serving the Union or a State. -Subject to the provisions
    of this Constitution, Acts -of the appropriate Legislature
    may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of
    persons appointed, to public servic.es and posts in              F
    connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State:

    Provided that it shall be competent for the President or
    such person as he may direct in the case of services and
    posts in ·connection with the affairs of the Union, and for
    the .Governor of a State or such person as he ryiay dir~ct       G
    in case of services and posts in connection with the affairs
    of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and
    the conditions of service of persons appointed, to s1,1ch
    .services and posts untilprovision in that behalf is made
     by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this    H
    1038    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 6 S.C.R.


A       Article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to
        the provisions of any such Act."

   Article 309, quoted above, would show that under the main
   provision of the Article, Acts of appropriate Legislature may
B regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons
   appointed to public services and posts in connection with the
   affairs of Union or of any State. The proviso to Article 309 of
   the Constitution, however, states that until provision in that
   behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate
C Legislature under this Article, the President or the Governor,
   as the case may be, or any such person as they may direct,
   make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service
   of persons appointed, to such services and posts in connection
 . with the affairs of the Union or of any State respectively. The
   proviso to Article 309 further says that "any rules so made shall
D have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act" made
   under Article 309 of the Constitution. The words "any rules so
   made shall have effect" signify that the rules will become
   operative subject only to the provisions of the Constitution and
   the provisions of any Act made by the appropriate Legislature
E under Article 309 of the Constitution. Hence, Section 21 of the
   Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, which provides that
   where in any Act, or any rule passed under any Act, it is
   directed that any order, notification or other matter shall be
   notified or published, such notification or publication shall,
F unless the Act otherwise provides, be deemed to be duly made
   if it is published in the Official Gazette, has no application
   whatsoever to a rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of
   the Constitution.

G      6. In /. T. C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards & Anr. v. Manda/
    Revenue Officer, A. P. & Ors. (supra) cited by Mr. Rao, one of
    the questions which arose for decision was whether the
    publication of the exemption notification in the Andhra Pradesh
    Gazette as required by Section 11(1) of the Andhra Pradesh
    Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1963 was mandatory
H
T. NARASIMHULU & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. & ORS.1039
              [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
or merely directory and this Court held after considering its A
earlier decisions that where the parent statute prescribes the
mode of publication or promulgation that mode has to be
followed and that such a requirement is imperative and cannot
be dispensed with. The Court, in particular, held that where a
power is conferred to exempt a class of persons from the levy B
created by a statute upon another authority by the legislature,
that authority has to, and can, exercise that power only in strict
compliance with the requirements of the provision conferring
that power and it is in the interest of the general public that such
notifications are not only given wide publicity but there should c
also be no dispute with respect to the date of .their making or
with respect to the language and contents thereof. In the present
case, the facts are entirely different. As we h,ave seen, the
amendments to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rul,es by G.O.Ms.
Nos. 35 and 51 with retrospective effect are sought to be made D
in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution and not in exercise of any power conferred
by any Act made by the State Legislature and the Constitution
or any appropriate Act made under Article 309 of the
Constitution does not prescribe any mode of publication of rules . E
made under the proviso to Article 309.

      7.This is not to say that rules made under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution are not required to be published
at all. A rule made under the proviso to· Article 309 of the
Constitution has the same effect as an Act of appropriate               F
Legislature regulating the recruitment and conditions of service
of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union or of any State. Hence, even if Article
309 of the Constitution does not say that the rules made under
the proviso thereto are required to be published, these rules           G
are required to be published just as any other Act passed by
the appropriate Legislature is required to be published so that
the persons affected by the rules or the Act are aware of the
rule or the Act. In Har/a v. The State of Rajasthan [AIR 1951
SC 467] this Court held:                                                H
    1040    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010) 6 S.C.R.

A       " .... Natural justice requires that before a law can become
        opera\ive it must be promulgated or published. It must be
        broadcast in some civilized19way so that all men may
        know what it is or, at the very least, there must be some
        special rule or regulation or customary channel by or
B       through which such knowledge can be acquired with the
        exercise of due and reasonable diligence. The thought that
        a decision reached in the secret recesses of a chamber
        to which the public have no access and to which even their
        accredited representatives have no access and of which
c       they can normally know nothing, can nevertheless affect
        their lives, liberty and property by the mere passing of a
        Resolution without anything more is abhorrent to 19civili~ed
        man. It shocks his conscience. In the absence therefore
        of any law, rule, regulation or custom, we hold that a law
        cannot come into being in this way. Promulgation or
D
        publication of some reasonable sort is essential."

        Also in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George [AIR
    1965 SC 722] this Court held:

E       " ...... Where there is a statutory requirement as to the
        mode or form of publication and they are such that, in the
        circumstances, the Court holds to be mandatory, a failure
        to comply with those requirements might result in there
        being no effective order the contravention of which could
F       be the subject of prosecution but where there is no
        statutory requirement we conceive the rule to be that it is
        necessary that it should be published in the usual form i.e.
        by publication within the country in such media as generally
        adopted to notify to all the persons concerned the making
        of rules ..... "
G
       8. It will be clear from the law laid down by this Court that
  where the law prescribes the mode of publication of the law to
  become operative, the law must be published in that mode only,
  but where the mode of publication of the law is not prescribed
H by the law, such law should be published in some usual or
T. NARASIMHULU & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. & ORS.1041
              [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

recognized mode to bring it to the knowledge of all persons        A
concerned. In the present case, the contention of the appellants
before, the Tribunal or the High Court was not that the
Government Order in G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 that the
amendment to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules would have
retrospective effect from 08.04.1986 was never made known          B
by any reasonable mode, but that it was not published in the
Official Gazette. This contention of the appellants, as we have
seen, has no merit.

      9. Mr. Rao next submitted that Rules under the proviso to C
Article 309 of the Constitution can be made by the President
or the Governor, as the case may be, with retrospective effect,
but if such Rules made with retrospective effectaffect a vested
right of a Government servant, the same will be ultra vires
Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that in the seniority
list published on 15.12.1988 the appellants were shown senior D
to respondents 3 to 14 (private respondents) having. been
appointed to the cadre of Assistant Conservators of Forests.
by direct recruitment earlier than the private respondents, but .
as a consequence of the retrospective effect of the
amendments to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules by G.O.Ms. E
Nos. 35 and 51, the private respondents will be shown senior
to the appellants in the seniority list. He referred to the.
observations of this Court in para 24 at page 638 of the
judgment in Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. C.R ..
Rangadhamaiah & Ors. ((1997) 6 SCC 623] that in many F
decisions of this Court the expressions 'vested rights' or
'accrued rights' have been used while striking down the.
impugned provisions which had been given retrospective
operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of
promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, .etc. of the G
employees. He argued that since the seniority of the appellants
had been adversely affected by amendments to Rule 2 by
G.O.Ms. NOs. 35 and 51 made with retrospective effect from
 08.04.1986, the amendments take away the vested rights or
 accrued rights and are liable to be struck down by the Court. H
    1042    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A        10. In reply, Mr. Patwalia submitted that in S. S. Bola &
    Ors. v. B.D. Sardana & Ors. [(1997) 8 SCC 522] a three-Judge
  Bench of this Court has taken a view that a particular position
  in the seniority list within a cadre can neither be said to be
  accrued or vested right of a Government servant and that an
B Act of the State Legislature, which has retrospective effect and
  which affects seniority of Government servants, cannot held to
  be ultra vires the Constitution. He submitted that the private
  respondents, who were Forest Range Officers and were
  deputed to the State Forest College in accordance with
c Government Orders, had been treated as direct recruits of
  different years to the posts of Assistant Conservators of Forests
  pursuant to the G.O.Ms. Nos. 35 and 51 and that the seniority
  in the cadre of the Assistant Conservators of Forests have to
  be determined vis-a-vis the appellants, who were also direct
  recruits in accordance with the relevant seniority rules. He
0
  SlJbmitted that the contention of the appellants that their vested/
  accrued right to seniority has been affected by the amendments
  to Rule 2 of the Forest Service Rules, is, therefore,
  misconceived.

E       11. In Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. C.R.
  Rangadhamaiah & Ors. (supra), cited by Mr. Nageshwar Rao,
  however, whether seniority was a vested right or not was not
  the issue and the issue was whether pension of a Government
  servant admissible under the rules in force at the time of
F retirement could be adversely affected by a retrospective
  amendment to the rules and the Constitution Bench held that
  such retrospective amendment affected the vested rights and
  was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Mr. Rao,
  however, has relied on the following observations in paras 23
G and 24 of the judgment in Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v.
  C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. (supra):

         "23. The said decision in Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni1
         of the Constitution Bench of this Court has been followed
H 1.   (1983) 2 sec 33.
 T. NARASIMHULU & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. & ORS.1043
               [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
        by various Division Benches of this Court. (See K. C. Arora   A
       v. State of Haryana ; T.R. Kapurv. State of Haryana ; P.O.
                              2                             3

       Aggarwal v. State of U.P. 4 ; K. Narayanan v. State of
       Karnataka 5 ; Union of India v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty6
       and K. Ravindranath Pai v. State of Karnataka. 7 )
                                                                      B
        24. In many of these decisions the expressions "vested
        rights" or "accrued rights" have been used while striking
        down the impugned provisions which had been given
        retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect
        in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive            C
        appointment, etc., of the employees ..... "

       It will be clear from the obiter in para 24 of the judgment
 quoted above on which Mr. Nageshwar Rao has relied upon
 that this Court has included seniority as one amongst the vested
 rights or accrued rights on the basis of the decisions of this D
 Court noted in para 23 of the judgment quoted above. We have
 perused the decisions noted in para 23 of the judgment and
 we find that it is only in the case of Union of India v. Tushaf
 Ranjan Mohanty (supra) that a two-Judge Bench of this Court
 has held that seniority of the Tushar Ranjan Mohanty was a E
 vested right and this vested right could not be taken away by
 retrospective amendments of the rules.

      12. In a three-Judge Bench judgment in S. S. Bola & Ors.
 v. B.D. Sardana & Ors. (supra), cited by Mr. Patwalia, however,
 we find that this Court has clearly held that seniority was not a    F
 vested or accrued right. Three separate judgments were
 delivered by K. Ramaswamy, J., S. Saghir Ahmad, J. and G.
 B. Pattanaik, J. K. Ramaswamy, J. has held:
 2.    (1984) 3 sec 281.                                              G
 3.    (1986 Supp. sec 584.
 4.    (1987) 3 sec 622.
  5.   1994 supp. (1) sec 450.
  6.   (1994) 5 sec 450.
· 7.   1995 Supp. (2) sec 246.                                        H
    1044    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 6 S.C.R.


A       "no one has a vested right to promotion or seniority. But
        an officer has an interest to seniority acquired by working
        out the rules. The seniority should be taken away only by
        operation of valid law." [(1997) 8 sec at 634]

        G. B. Pattanaik, J. has also held:
B
        "Thus, to have a particular position in the seniority list within
        a cadre can neither be said to be an accrued or vested
        right of a Government servant and losing some places in
        the seniority list within the cadre does not amount to
c       reduction in rank even though the future chances of
        promotion get delayed thereby ..... " [(1997) 8 sec at 666].

        S. Saghir Ahmad, J. has agreed with G. B. Pattanaik, J.
    and has held:
D       "In the instant case, the judgments rendered by this Court
        in the earlier decisions relating to the seniority of the
        present incumbents were founded on the service rules then
        existing. These service rules have since been replaced by
        the impugned Act which has been enforced with
E       retrospective effect. The various aspects of merits have
        been considered by my Brother Pattanaik and I cannot
        usefully add any further words on merits ..... " [(1997) 8
        sec at 639 at para 162].
F      It is, thus, clear from the judgment of a larger Bench that
  in S. S. Bola & Ors. v. B. D. Sardana & Ors. (supra) that
  seniority of a Government servant is not a vested right and that
  an Act of the State Legislature or a rule made under Article 309
  of the Constitution can retrospectively affect the seniority of a
G Government servant. The second contention of Mr. Rao,
  therefore, also fails.

         13. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the
    appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.8082 and 8083 of 2003, in
    addition to the contention of Mr. Nageshwar Rao, submitted that
H
T. NARASIMHULU & ORS. v. STATE OF A. P. & ORS.1045
              [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

the amendment to Rule 2 by G.O.Ms. No. 51 only provides that            A
Forest Range Officers, who secured honours in their batches
in the Rangers Training Course, would be deputed for training
to join two years course of the State Forest Service College
and does not provide for appointment of such Forest Range
Officers as Assi~tant Conservators of Forests.                          B

    14. Rule 2 together with the proviso as amended by
G.O.Ms. No.51 is quoted hereinbelow:

    "Rule 2. Appointment : - Appointment to the several
    categories should be made as follows :                              C

 Category                        Method of Appointment

Category 1: Chief Conservator Promotion from Conservators

Category 2: Conservators     Promotion from Dy.Conservators             D

Category 2: Dy.              Conservators Promotion from
                             Asst. Conservators

Category 2: Asst.            Conservators Direct recruitment or
                             recruitment by transfer from Rangers of    E
                             the Andhra Pradesh Sub-ordinate Service.

           Provided that Forest Range Officers who secured
    honours in their batches in the Rangers' Training Course
    shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant
                                                                        F
    Conservators. They shall be deputed to join the two years
    course of State Forest Service Colleges run by the
    Government of India, treating them as direct recruits to the
    post of Asst. Conservators. The terms and conditions of
    training prescribed under clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 6 of          G
    the said Rules for a probationary Assistant Conservator
    of Forests appointed by direct recruitment, shall apply to
    the persons mentioned above. Such appointment to the
    post of Assistant Conservator of Forests shall be counted
    against direct recruitment quota."
                                                                        H
    1046     SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A      It will be clear from the title of Rule 2 that the rule provides
  for appointment and not for training. The main provision of the
  rule provides for appointment of four categories of officers of
  the State Forest Services, namely, Chief Conservator,
  Conservators, Deputy Conservators and Assistant
B Conservators. The proviso to Rule 2 as amended by G.O.Ms.
  No. 51 further provides that Forest Range Officers who secured
  Honours in their batches in the Rangers' Training Course shall
  be eligible for appointment as Assistant Conservators and after
  deputation to join the two years course of State Forest Service
c Colleges run by the Government of India, will be treated as
  direct recruits to the post of Assistant Conservators. There is,
  therefore, no scope for taking a view that the proviso to Rule 2
  as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 51 is not a rule relating to
  appointment of Forest Rangers as Assistant Conservators.

        15. In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals
    and we accordingly dismiss the same, but there shaU-be no
    order as to costs.

    B.B.B.                                      Appeals dismissed.