The Regulations apply prospectively, not retrospectively, and benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect.

1. These writ petitions raise a common question, and are therefore disposed of by a common judgment. The question is whether the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter called "The Regulations") can be applied retrospectively in the case of petitioners.

2. Petitioner in OP 2897/86 joined service as a Lower Division Clerk and in due course was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk on 15-6-1983. He holds a M.com. Degree and a Diploma in Accountancy. Petitioner in OP 2928/86 was appointed as Public Relations Officer in 1979 on contract basis. Thereafter, by Ext.P1 order he was appointed to the same post on 15-10-1982, on a regular basis. At the time of appointment of petitioners, the only condition stipulated was, satisfactory completion of probation for a period of two years, within a period of three years.

3. The Regulations came into force on 3-12-1983. Test qualifications were prescribed by Regulation.9. Petitioners did not qualify in the test. Then, a notice was issued to show cause why their probation should not be terminated, as they had not acquired the said qualification. Petitioners showed cause. That was not accepted, and by Ext.P4 (in both cases) probation of petitioners was terminated in April, 1986 with retrospective effect.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the regulation prescribing test qualifications cannot be enforced retrospectively, that at the end of the period of probation petitioners should be deemed to have been confirmed, and that Regulation.9 itself does not prescribe test qualification for the categories to which petitioners belong.

5. Counsel for Guruvayur Devaswom and counsel for 4th respondent in O.P. 2802/86 heard along with these petitions, would submit that the Regulations are not operated retrospectively, and that petitioners are bound to acquire test qualifications during the period of probation. Counsel for 4th respondent in O.P. 2802/86 raised a further contention that the Regulations came into force sometime in 1981, and that there was no question of retroactivity. According to him the Regulations were made in 1981, though approval was granted only in 1983. Counsel would submit that there is difference between approval and assent, and that unless disapproved, approval should be deemed to have been given from the date when the regulations were made. It is not stated, when the Regulations were made. That apart, I do not understand making of Regulations, as synonymous with writing it down. Incidentally, the Guruvayur. Devaswom has no case, that the Regulations came into force on any day prior to 3-12-1983, the date of approval. The specific stand in Para.10 of the counter affidavit in O.P.2897/86, is that the Regulations came into force on 3-12-1983. I am unable to accept the submission that the Regulations breathed into life, at any time prior to 3-12-1983.

6. Then the question is whether the Regulations have retrospective operation. There is clear indication in Regulation.9, that it applies prospectively, and not retrospectively. Clauses (a) (b) & (c) of the regulation refers to persons "appointed" and not to those in position. The proviso to Regulation.9 grants temporary exemption'on promotion'. It reads:

"provided that a person who is employed on a regular basis in the Guruvayur Devaswom service on the date of approval of these Regulations by the Kerala Government shall be granted a temporary exemption for a period of two years from that date from passing the tests mentioned above and may be promoted to the higher post temporarily, if he is otherwise qualified. If the person so promoted does not pass the test prescribed within the period of temporary exemption, he shall be reverted to the post from which he was promoted and shall not be eligible for re-promotion unless

he has passed the tests" (emphasis supplied)

7. Application of regulation is on 'promotion' and the requirement of test qualifications also arises, only 'on promotion'. The proviso fu