{"id":221058,"date":"2009-07-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-04-04T16:57:21","modified_gmt":"2017-04-04T11:27:21","slug":"subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Subhash Chander Awasthi And … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Subhash Chander Awasthi And … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009<\/div>\n
L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                          1\n\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                      CHANDIGARH\n\n                                L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992\n                                Date of Decision : 03.07.2009\n\nSubhash Chander Awasthi and others                   ...Appellants\n\n                                Versus\n\nState of Punjab and others                           ...Respondents\n\nCORAM:HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA\n\nPresent: Dr. Balram K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with\n         Ms. Anamika Negi, Advocate,\n         for the appellants.\n          Mr. H.S.Sidhu, Addl. AG, Punjab.\n          Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate, with\n          Mr. B.N.S.Sharma, Advocate,\n          for respondent Nos.3 and 4.\n\nHEMANT GUPTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
          The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is<\/p>\n
against the judgment dated 29.11.1991 passed by learned Single Judge of<\/p>\n
this Court in a writ petition filed by the appellants.<\/p>\n
          The appellants are the Inspectors of Factories governed by<\/p>\n
Punjab Labour Service (Class-I and Class-II) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter<\/p>\n
called as ‘the Rules’), framed under proviso to Article 309 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India.       The appellants are degree-holders and were<\/p>\n
directly recruited to the post of Inspectors of Factories. Though the<\/p>\n
appellants have also made grievance in respect of respondent No.5<\/p>\n
recruited alongwith appellant No.1 against SC category in the writ<\/p>\n
petition, but the said grievance doesn’t subsists and no argument was<\/p>\n
raised in the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
 L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
             The appellants have averred that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were<\/p>\n
not qualified to be appointed to the post of Inspectors of Factories under<\/p>\n
the Rules.        Respondent No.-3 possess the degree in Chemical<\/p>\n
Engineering and respondent No.4 in Civil Engineering, but under the<\/p>\n
Rules a degree-holder in Mechanical Engineering or Electrical<\/p>\n
Engineering alone is competent to be appointed as Inspector of Factories.<\/p>\n
The aforesaid respondents were appointed as Inspectors of Factories in<\/p>\n
June 1971 against ex-cadre posts, which are created by an order dated<\/p>\n
12.2.1970.\n<\/p>\n
             In the seniority list circulated on 23.10.1974, respondent Nos.3<\/p>\n
and 4 were reflected as senior to the appellants. The representation by<\/p>\n
the appellants against the said seniority list was accepted. The appellants<\/p>\n
were shown senior to respondent Nos.3 and 4. Subsequently, the said<\/p>\n
respondents were brought into cadre from the date of issue of the<\/p>\n
seniority list i.e. 15.10.1974\/23.10.1974. It is the case of the appellants<\/p>\n
that respondent Nos.3 and 4 could not be brought into cadre by virtue of<\/p>\n
executive order without amending Statutory Rules but since respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.3 and 4 are placed junior to the appellants, they had no grievance at<\/p>\n
that time.\n<\/p>\n
             Vide notification dated 11.9.1978 (Annexure P-4), the Rules<\/p>\n
were amended retrospectively w.e.f. 12.2.1970 so as to make graduates in<\/p>\n
Civil and Chemical Engineering eligible for appointment as Inspectors of<\/p>\n
Factories. After the aforesaid amendment, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were<\/p>\n
considered senior to the appellants for the purposes of promotion to the<\/p>\n
post of Deputy Chief Inspectors of Factories, which fell vacant on
\n L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
1.11.1978. The said action of the State Government was challenged by<\/p>\n
the appellants in CWP No.5134 of 1978. The writ petition was allowed<\/p>\n
vide judgment reported as Subhash Chander Avasthi and Others Vs.<\/p>\n
State of Punjab and Others 1992(1) SLR 596, when the following order<\/p>\n
was passed :\n<\/p>\n
          “The seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondent Nos.3 and<\/p>\n
          4 was thus rightly determined by the Government vide<\/p>\n
          Annexure P-1 placing the latter at the bottom and the<\/p>\n
          Government is not justified in treating them (respondent Nos.3<\/p>\n
          and 4) as senior to the petitioners. However, I cannot restrain<\/p>\n
          myself from observing that by treating the two posts held by<\/p>\n
          respondent Nos.3 and 4 as ex-cadre posts, a great hardship<\/p>\n
          and injustice has been caused to them. As it is not possible in<\/p>\n
          these proceedings to give any relief, they may approach the<\/p>\n
          Government to relief them of this hardship by confirming them<\/p>\n
          from an appropriate date.”<\/p>\n
          On 15.1.1982, the Rules were repealed with the promulgation<\/p>\n
of Punjab Labour (Class-II) Service Rules 1982, (hereinafter called as<\/p>\n
‘1982 Rules’). The said Rules contemplate degree in Chemical and Civil<\/p>\n
Engineering as the academic qualification for recruitment to the post of<\/p>\n
Inspector of Factories. The two ex-cadre posts created on 12.2.1970 were<\/p>\n
also included in the cadre of Inspector of Factories with effect from the<\/p>\n
date of creation of the posts.     1982 Rules have been amended on<\/p>\n
5.11.1982 inserting proviso to Rule 3. Effect of insertion of such proviso<\/p>\n
is that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are treated to be in the cadre of Inspectors
\n L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
of Factories from the date of their initial appointments.<\/p>\n
          On behalf of the State, it has been averred that respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.3 and 4 were taken into service as Inspectors of Factories, Chemical<\/p>\n
Engineering and Civil Engineering on 3.6.1971 and 7.6.1971 i.e. earlier<\/p>\n
than the appointment of appellants as Inspectors of Factories. It is also<\/p>\n
pointed out that two posts, one Inspector of Factories (Civil Engineering)<\/p>\n
and another Inspector of Factories (Chemical Engineering) were created<\/p>\n
on 12.2.1970. Such posts were created for the reason that different type<\/p>\n
of industries are coming up in the State. It was felt that Inspector of<\/p>\n
Factories with qualification in Chemical and Civil Engineering would be<\/p>\n
necessary for the proper inspection of Factories with a view to safeguard<\/p>\n
the interest of workers employed therein. It is averred that Rules were<\/p>\n
amended retrospectively to give justice to respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the<\/p>\n
notification amending the Rules was issued after following the prescribed<\/p>\n
procedure and that the posts have been including in the Rules from the<\/p>\n
date of creation of the posts. Such Rules have been amended by giving<\/p>\n
justice to the entire class of Officers i.e. Inspector of Factories with<\/p>\n
qualification of Civil and Chemical Engineering graduates. Still further<\/p>\n
the Rules have been amended keeping in view the hardship which<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.3 and 4 were suffering, which was even noticed by this<\/p>\n
Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellants.<\/p>\n
          The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter-alia,<\/p>\n
holding that inclusion of certain posts in the cadre of particular service<\/p>\n
cannot be said to mean that the initial appointment as such was illegal<\/p>\n
and irregular. It is open to the authorities to change the cadres including
\n L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
the posts of one cadre into other in the exigency of administration.<\/p>\n
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 had degrees in Civil and Chemical Engineering<\/p>\n
and were getting the same pay scale and are appointed prior to the<\/p>\n
appellants. The learned Single Judge also held that the amendment in the<\/p>\n
Rules cannot be said to be arbitrary as the proviso has been added simply<\/p>\n
with a view to ameliorate the lot of respondent Nos.3 and 4, who had<\/p>\n
come into service prior to the appellants and are yet shown juniors to<\/p>\n
them. With such finding recorded, the writ petition was dismissed.<\/p>\n
          The grievance of the appellants is that by virtue of such<\/p>\n
amendments in 1982 Rules, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have been given<\/p>\n
seniority over them and that such amendment is wholly illegal and<\/p>\n
against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
It is argued that the appellants have been shown senior to respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.3 and 4 after 13 years and by virtue of amendment in the Rules with<\/p>\n
retrospective effect, the service career of the appellants has been<\/p>\n
adversely affected.    It is argued that the insertion of proviso vide<\/p>\n
notification dated 5.11.1982 is retrospective in operation and, therefore,<\/p>\n
the vested rights of the appellants to be senior to respondent Nos.3 and 4<\/p>\n
cannot be taken away by such amendment. It is also contended that<\/p>\n
proviso has been apended to 1982 Rules though substantially the proviso<\/p>\n
has the effect of amending 1955 Rules.          It is, thus, contended that<\/p>\n
repealed Rules cannot be amended.             Therefore, the rights of the<\/p>\n
appellants for promotion cannot be tinkered with by the respondents.<\/p>\n
Such action is illegal and not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
 L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
          Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned Senior Advocate, representing<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.3 and 4, has vehemently argued that the Rules can be<\/p>\n
amended retrospectively and that neither the seniority nor the chances of<\/p>\n
promotion are the vested rights. Since, neither the seniority nor the<\/p>\n
further chances of promotion are the vested rights, therefore, the<\/p>\n
appellants cannot impugn the amendments effected, which were<\/p>\n
incorporated so as to remedy the hardship caused to respondent Nos.3<\/p>\n
and 4 on account of omission of the State Government in making<\/p>\n
appointments without suitably amending the Rules. Reliance is placed<\/p>\n
upon Union of India and Others Vs. Dr. S. Krishna Murthy and Others<\/p>\n
(1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 689 and Chairman, Railway Board and<\/p>\n
Others Vs. C.R.Rangadhamaiah and Others etc. (1997) 6 SCC 623.<\/p>\n
          We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. In<\/p>\n
B.S.Yadav and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others AIR 1981 SC<\/p>\n
561, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the proviso to Article 309<\/p>\n
provides that until the State Legilature passes law on the particular<\/p>\n
subject, it shall be competent for the Governor of the State to make Rules<\/p>\n
in case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State.<\/p>\n
The Governor thus steps in when the legislature does not act. It was held<\/p>\n
to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
          44. …..The power exercised by the Governor under the proviso<\/p>\n
          is thus a power which the legislature is competent to exercise<\/p>\n
          but has in fact not yet exercised.         It partakes of the<\/p>\n
          characteristics of the legislative, not executive, power. It is<\/p>\n
          legislative power…..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
          45. That the Governor possesses legislative power under our<\/p>\n
          Constitituion is incontrovertible and, therefore, there is<\/p>\n
          nothing unique about the Governor’s power under the proviso<\/p>\n
          to Article 309 being in the nature of a legislative power…..<\/p>\n
          …..The power of the Governor under the proviso to Article 309<\/p>\n
          to make appropriate rules is of the same kind. It is legislative<\/p>\n
          power. Under Article 213, he substitutes for the legislature<\/p>\n
          because the legislature is in recess.      Under the proviso to<\/p>\n
          Article 309, he substitutes for the legislature because the<\/p>\n
          legislature has not yet exercised its power to pass an<\/p>\n
          appropriate law on the subject.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          76. ….. Since the Governor exercises a legislative power under<\/p>\n
          the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, it is open to him<\/p>\n
          to give retrospective operation to the rules made under that<\/p>\n
          provision. But the date from which the rules are made to<\/p>\n
          operate must be shown to bear, either from the face of the<\/p>\n
          rules or by extrinsic evidence, reasonable nexus with the<\/p>\n
          provisions contained in the rules, especially when the<\/p>\n
          retrospective effect extends over a long period as in this case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         In Dr. S. Krishna Murthy’s case (supra), the challenge was to<\/p>\n
Rule 3(2)(d) of Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules,<\/p>\n
1968, and similar Rule of Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority)<\/p>\n
Rules, 1954. By virtue of the impugned Rules, the past service rendered<\/p>\n
by Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned<\/p>\n
Officers in the Army, was to be taken into consideration for determining
\n L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
year of allotment. The argument that the impugned Rules take away the<\/p>\n
vested rights of the respondents of seniority and, consequently, pre-<\/p>\n
judicially affects their rights, was negatived. It was found that seniority<\/p>\n
of the respondents is not taken away or interfered with by the impugned<\/p>\n
Rules. The year of allotment of the respondents remain the same as the<\/p>\n
impugned     Rules    only   provided   for   weightage    to       Emergency<\/p>\n
Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers, for<\/p>\n
their past services in the Army during the Emergency period. The Court<\/p>\n
held to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
           17. …… It is submitted by the learned counsel that as the<\/p>\n
           respondents have acquired a particular seniority, Section 3 of<\/p>\n
           the Act as amended, if read as suggested by the army officers,<\/p>\n
           would contravene the fundamental rights of the respondents.<\/p>\n
           This extreme contention is not sustainable on the face of it, for<\/p>\n
           even assuming that the seniority of the respondents or their<\/p>\n
           chances of promotion are affected by the impugned Rules,<\/p>\n
           surely it cannot be said that there has been a contravention of<\/p>\n
           the fundamental rights of the respondents. Nobody has any<\/p>\n
           fundamental right to a particular seniority or to any chance of<\/p>\n
           promotion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) Association, U.P.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
and Others Vs. Union of India and Others 1993 (1) SLR 69 (S.C.), the<\/p>\n
amendment to All India Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987<\/p>\n
was upheld as it was found that the amendment has been incorporated to<\/p>\n
prevent injustice to the officers recruited and promoted earlier than the
\n L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
officers promoted later. It was also held that there is distinction between<\/p>\n
the right and interest.   No one has a vested right to promotion or<\/p>\n
seniority, but an officer has interest to seniority acquired by working out<\/p>\n
the Rule. It was further held that sub Section 1-A of Section 3-A of All<\/p>\n
India Services Act enjoins the authorities not to give retrospective effect<\/p>\n
to such a Rule or Regulation so as to avoid “prejudicial affect or the<\/p>\n
interest” of any person to whom such Rule may be applicable. The<\/p>\n
operation of law may have the effect of postponing the future<\/p>\n
consideration of the claim or legitimate expectation of the interest for<\/p>\n
promotion. It was held that there is no vested right to seniority and it is<\/p>\n
variable and defeasible by operation of law.\n<\/p>\n
          In C.R.Rangadhamaiah’s case (supra), a Constitution Bench<\/p>\n
held that once a person joins service under the Government, the<\/p>\n
relationship between him and the Government is in the nature of status<\/p>\n
rather than contractual and the terms of his service while he is in<\/p>\n
employment are governed by Statute or Statutory Rules, which may be<\/p>\n
unilaterally altered without the consent of the employee. It was held that<\/p>\n
though the Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution<\/p>\n
can have prospective or retrospective operation, but the said Rules may<\/p>\n
be open to challenge on the ground of violation of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Constitution including the fundamental rights contained in Part-III of the<\/p>\n
Constitution. It was held that a Rule which seeks to reverse from an<\/p>\n
anterior date a benefit which has been granted or availed i.e. promotion or<\/p>\n
pay scale, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. The judgments
\n L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
striking down the provisions giving retrospective operation so as to have<\/p>\n
an adverse effect in the matter of promotion and seniority were found to<\/p>\n
be not correct law. It was held to the following effect :<\/p>\n
          24. …… In many of these decisions the expressions “vested<\/p>\n
          rights” or “accrued rights” have been used while striking down<\/p>\n
          the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective<\/p>\n
          operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of<\/p>\n
          promotion, seniority, substantive appointment etc. of the<\/p>\n
          employees. The said expressions have been used in the context<\/p>\n
          of a right flowing under the relevant rules which was sought to<\/p>\n
          be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking<\/p>\n
          away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time.<\/p>\n
          It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective<\/p>\n
          operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already<\/p>\n
          available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary,<\/p>\n
          discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under<\/p>\n
          Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold<\/p>\n
          that these decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in<\/p>\n
          Roshan Lal Tandon, B.S.Yadav and Raman lal Keshav Lal<\/p>\n
          Soni.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The Constitution Bench in S.S.Bola Vs. B.D.Sardana (1997) 8<\/p>\n
SCC 522, examined the amendment in the Rules affecting seniority of the<\/p>\n
members of service by way of enactment by State giving retrospective<\/p>\n
effect. It was held that there is distinction between right and interest.<\/p>\n
Seniority is a facet of interest and is governed by the existing Rules. No
\n L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
one has a vested right to promotion or seniority. But a Officer has a<\/p>\n
interest to seniority acquired by working out the Rules. Right to be<\/p>\n
considered for promotion is a Rule prescribed by conditions of service. A<\/p>\n
Rule which affects the promotion of a person relates to conditions of<\/p>\n
service. The Rule merely affecting the chances of promotion cannot be<\/p>\n
regarded as varying the conditions of service. Chances of promotion are<\/p>\n
not conditions of service and a Rule which affects the chances of<\/p>\n
promotion does not amount to change in the conditions of service.<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sagir Ahmed, concurring with the above majority<\/p>\n
view held to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
          199. To the said effect the judgment of this Court in the case of<\/p>\n
          State of Punjab V. Kishan Das<\/a> wherein this Court observed an<\/p>\n
          order forfeiting the past service which has earned a<\/p>\n
          government servant increments in the post or rank he holds,<\/p>\n
          howsoever adverse it is to him, affecting his seniority within<\/p>\n
          the rank to which he belongs or his future chances of<\/p>\n
          promotion, does not attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution<\/p>\n
          since it is not covered by the expression reduction in rank.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          200. Thus to have a particular position in the seniority list<\/p>\n
          within a cadre can neither be said to be accrued or vested<\/p>\n
          right of a government servant and losing some places in the<\/p>\n
          seniority list within the cadre does not amount to reduction in<\/p>\n
          rank even though the future chances of promotion get delayed<\/p>\n
          thereby. It was urged by Mr. Sachar and Mr. Mahabir Singh<\/p>\n
          appearing for the direct recruits that the effect of
\n L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
         redetermination of the seniority in accordance with the<\/p>\n
         provisions of the Act is not only that the direct recruits lose a<\/p>\n
         few places of seniority in the rank of Executive Engineer but<\/p>\n
         their future chances of promotion are greatly jeopardised and<\/p>\n
         that right having been taken away the Act must be held to be<\/p>\n
         invalid. It is difficult to accept this contention since chances of<\/p>\n
         promotion of a government servant are not a condition of<\/p>\n
         service. In the case of State of Maharashtra V. Chandrakant<\/p>\n
         Anant Kulkarni,<\/a> this Court held :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                “16. Mere chances of promotion are not conditions of<\/p>\n
                service and the fact that there was reduction in the<\/p>\n
                chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in<\/p>\n
                the conditions of service. A right to be considered for<\/p>\n
                promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of<\/p>\n
                promotion are not.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         205. In the aforesaid premises, it must be held that the direct<\/p>\n
         recruits did not have a vested right nor had any right accrued<\/p>\n
         in their favour in the matter of getting a particular position in<\/p>\n
         the seniority list of Executive Engineers under the pre-<\/p>\n
         amended Rules which is said to have been taken away by the<\/p>\n
         Act since such a right is neither a vested right of an employee<\/p>\n
         nor can it be said to be an accured right. Thus there is no bar<\/p>\n
         for the legislature to amend the law in consequence of which<\/p>\n
         the inter se position in the rank of Executive Engineer might<\/p>\n
         get altered.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                        13<\/span><\/p>\n
          A perusal of the record would show that the Rules as initially<\/p>\n
framed did not contemplate direct recruitment to the post of Inspector of<\/p>\n
Factories from amongst candidates having degree in Civil and Chemical<\/p>\n
Engineering.   Two posts of Inspectors of Factories were created on<\/p>\n
12.2.1970. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were appointed against said posts of<\/p>\n
Inspectors of Factories by the State Government in consultation with<\/p>\n
Punjab Public Service Commission. Thus, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were<\/p>\n
appointed after    complying with the procedure required for making<\/p>\n
appointments against the public posts. It was on 15.10.1974 (Annexure<\/p>\n
P-1), the ex-cadre posts held by respondent Nos.3 and 4 were brought on<\/p>\n
the cadre of Punjab Labour Service (Class I and II). On 29.12.1975<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-3), the temporary posts of Inspector of Factories (Civil and<\/p>\n
Chemical) were converted into permanent posts as well. The Rules were<\/p>\n
amended on 11.9.1978 (Annexure P-4) w.e.f. 12.2.1970 i.e. the date when<\/p>\n
two ex-cadre posts were created temporarily to be filled up from<\/p>\n
candidates having educational qualification of Chemical and Civil<\/p>\n
Engineering to the post of Inspector of Factories.\n<\/p>\n
          It appears that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were appointed as<\/p>\n
Inspectors of Factories by the State Government without making suitable<\/p>\n
amendments in the Rules.        The inaction or omission of the State<\/p>\n
Government has led to seniority dispute between the parties.          After<\/p>\n
amendment in the year 1978 contemplating that the posts of Inspectors of<\/p>\n
Factories can be filled up with educational qualification of degree in Civil<\/p>\n
and Chemical Engineering, the State Government treated respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.3 and 4 senior to the appellants.      Such action was found to be
\n L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992                                         14<\/span><\/p>\n
unjustified in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellants. It was also<\/p>\n
noticed that if two posts held by respondent Nos.3 and 4 are treated as ex-<\/p>\n
cadre posts, it shall cause great hardship and injustice to the said<\/p>\n
respondents. It was the said injustice and hardship which was sought to<\/p>\n
be removed by inserting the proviso vide notification dated 5.11.1982.<\/p>\n
The appellants have no vested rights either in maintaining seniority or in<\/p>\n
the chances of promotion as held by the judgments aforesaid.       The date<\/p>\n
of appointment of the appellants has not been altered. What has been<\/p>\n
altered is placement of respondent Nos.3 and 4, that too from the date,<\/p>\n
they were actually appointed. Therefore, the mere fact that respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.3 and 4 now rank senior to the appellants, cannot be said to be<\/p>\n
illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory violating any of the fundamental rights<\/p>\n
of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
          The other argument that the amendment on 5.11.1982 carried<\/p>\n
out in 1982 Rules in fact amends 1955 Rules, is again misconceived. The<\/p>\n
amendment has the effect of rectifying an apparent omission.             The<\/p>\n
mistake was sought to be rectified as 1982 Rules alone were in operation<\/p>\n
at that time.        Therefore, it cannot be said that action in giving<\/p>\n
retrospective effect to the Rules lacks any legislative incompetence.<\/p>\n
          In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the<\/p>\n
argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Consequently,<\/p>\n
the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             (T.S.THAKUR)                            (HEMANT GUPTA)\n             CHIEF JUSTICE                               JUDGE\n03.07.2009\nVimal\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Subhash Chander Awasthi And … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009 L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No. 842 of 1992 Date of Decision : 03.07.2009 Subhash Chander Awasthi and others …Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221058","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSubhash Chander Awasthi And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subhash Chander Awasthi And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-04T11:27:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subhash Chander Awasthi And … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-04T11:27:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3550,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Subhash Chander Awasthi And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-04T11:27:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subhash Chander Awasthi And … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Subhash Chander Awasthi And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subhash Chander Awasthi And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-04T11:27:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subhash Chander Awasthi And … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-04T11:27:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009"},"wordCount":3550,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009","name":"Subhash Chander Awasthi And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-04T11:27:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-chander-awasthi-and-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subhash Chander Awasthi And … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221058","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=221058"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221058\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}