The President's rule-making power under Article 309 of the Constitution is not delegable, but the authentication of rules made by the President can be done by authorized officers under Article 77(2) of the Constitution.

( 1 ) A constitutional question of first impression as to the nature and meaning of executive power of the President under the Constitution has arisen among other questions in this case.

( 2 ) THE accounts work of the main Department of Posts and Telegraphs used to be done by the petitioners designated as Senior Accountants governed by the Posts and Telegraphs Accountants Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1958 at Annexure R-2 of the written statement as amended on 29th March 1963 at Annexure R-3. The accounts work in the Telecommunications Branch of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was, on the other hand, done by the personnel of the Audit department called the SAS Accountants. The recruitment to the grade of Accounts Officers used to be made under the General Central Service Class II (Accounts/administrative Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1968, dated 15th February 1968 at Annexure R-5 to the written statement. Under these rules, the Senior Accountants of the Posts and Telegraphs Department with five years approved service in the grade were alone eligible for promotion as Accounts Officers.

( 3 ) ON 27th March 1968, as per letter at Annexure C to the writ petition, the Government decided that the accounts work of the Telecommunications Branch of the Posts and Telegraphs Department should be transferred to the Accounts Department of the Posts and Telegraphs Board. Along with this work, the SAS Accountants belonging to the Audit department were also to be transferred to the Posts and Telegraphs Department. The terms and conditions of the transfer were settled by the Government on 16th May 1968 as per letter at Annexure D to the writ petition. The SAS Accountants formerly of the Audit department were equated with the Senior Accountants of the Posts and Telegraphs department and were to bedesignated as Senior Accountants. As per para (ll) of Annexure D the inter-se seniority of the SAS Accountants formerly of the Audit department vis-a-vis the Senior Accountants of the Posts and Telegraphs department was to be fixed according to the length of the approved continuous service in the corresponding grades. Acting on this basis, on 6th July 1968, as per Annexure H, the Posts and Telegraphs department appointed Survashri S. Jayaraman and V. S. Srinivasan who were formerly SAS Accountants in the Audit department but who were since then transferred to the Posts and Telegraphs Department along with the accounts work of the Telecommunications Branch of the Posts and Telegraphs Department were on promotion as Accounts Officers.

( 4 ) THE petitioners who have been Senior Accountants of the Posts and Telegraphs Department from before the integration have filed these writ petitions (Civil Writ Petitions 560 and 561 of 1968) challenging the promotion of Survashri S. Jayaraman and V. S. Srinivasan as Accounts Officers on the following grounds namely:-

(1) The promotion was contrary to the statutory rules, namely. General Central Service Class II (Accounts; Administrative Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1968, dated 15-2-1968 at Annexure R-5 which provided for the promotion of only the Senior Accountants of the Posts and Telegraphs Department to the grade of Accounts Officers; (2) The promotion could not be retrospectively validated by the two sets of statutory rules subsequently made by the Government, namely, (a) the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Accountant General, Posts and Telegraphs) Transfer of Officers and Other Staff Rules, 1968 dated 30-8-1968 at Annexure R-6 and (b) the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Accounts and Finance Service Class II (Recruitment) Rules, 1968, dated 23-11-1968 at Annexure R-7;and (3) The equation of the SAS Accountants formerly of the Audit department with the Senior Accountants of the Posts and Telegraphs Department for the purpose of promotion to the grade of Accounts Officers is discriminatory against the petitioners contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) LET us consider th