P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, R. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants-original petitioners were called for selection by the District Employment Officer. Sabarkantha for preparing a select list for appointment to the posts of Armed Police Constables on 3-8-1957 and they were subjected to physical test checking of testimonials written test and oral interview from 22-12-1987 to 24 and all the appellants were select. All the appellants has passed Standard VI examination as required by Rule 31 (i) of Constables (Armed Branch Unarmed Branch and Women Branch) Recruitment Rules. 1979 framed under Sec. 5 (b) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 None of them passed S. S. C. Exam. Out of this list 42 candidates were appointed in the month of February. 1928 and thereafter the selection list was not operated or utilised till 19-8-1988 and on 20-8-1988. 15 more candidates were appointed from the select list. These 15 candidates were the persons who had passed S. S. C. examination and the persons who had not passed S. S. C. examination were not appointed. The Select list is operative for a period of one year or till the next select list is prepared whichever is earlier.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid statutory rules were amended by Amendment Rules of 1988 by notification published on 19-2-1988 (Annexure C to the petition) By the Amendment Rule 3 (h) was amended so as to provide that to he eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post at Constable the candidate must have passed Secondary School Certificate Examination or its equivalent. It appears that the Director General of police by his letter dated 7/09/1988 had instructed the District Superintendent of police to cancel the entire select list. The direction seams to have been given in the light of The amended rules after the selection list was prepared but before the appointments were made. But for the cancellation. the select list would have continued till 23-12-1988. Immediately after cancellation of the list the appellants-petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No. 6847 of 1988 which was summarily dismissed by the learned single judge on 28-10-1988 observing as follows:petitioners were Included in the select list of Armed Constables. Petitioners have not been appointed on the post in question on the ground that they are non S. S. C. i. e. they have not passed the S. S. C. examination. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the rules prescribing criteria criteria for the post of Armed Constables have been amended on Feb. 19 1988 As peg the provisions of the amended rules non S. S. C. candidates are not eligible for being appointed on the post of armed Constables. Therefore If the respondent authorities have not appointed the petitioners though Included in the list prepared earlier. It cannot be said that the action is arbitrary or unjust.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved hereby the original petitioners have preferred this Letters Patent appeal and it is submitted that the amendment of the rule is prospective and not retrospective and the selection which is already made on the basis of the unamended rule cannot be cancelled on the basis of the subsequently amended rule all therefore it cannot deprive the candidates of appointment who were qualified for selection and were already placed on the select list Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka AIR 1990 SC 405.

( 4 ) ON the other band the learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that although the rule is not retrospective and it is only prospective it applies to all the appointments to be made after the amended rule has come into force and it is submitted that the language of the rule is to be eligible for appointment xxx xxx the candidate must have passed Secondary School Certificate Examination or its equivalent and it is submitted that this amended rule having come into force on 19-2-1988 no candidate is eligible for appointment unless he has passed S. S. C examinati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document