The retrospective amendment of a Rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution validates actions taken under the Act even before the amendment was made, and there is no question of having to validate any action already taken provided it is subsequent to the date from which the amendment is given retrospective effect.

1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Sultan Singh for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction, quashing the order dated 27th January, 1973, passed by the Government of Rajasthan, whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the service.

2. The facts, briefly stated are as under : The petitioner joined the service of the former State of Jodhpur as a constable on 30th May, 1942, He was promoted as a Head Constable in 1946 and on 15th December, 1947, he was promoted to the post of Prosecuting Inspector in the former Jodhpur State, After the formation of the United State of Rajasthan by the merged of the princely States including the State of Jodhpur, the petitioner became an employee of the Government of Rajasthan. In August, 1952, the petitioner was intagrated as Prosecuting Inspector in the State of Rajasthan By order dated 2nd June, 1956, the petitioner was promoted to the post of officiating Dy. Superintendent of Police but the subsequent order dated 22nd/23rd December, 1957, he was reverted to the past of Prosecuting Inspector. The petitioner was again promoted to the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police by order dated 9th June, 1966 and he was confirmed on the said post by order dated 14th August, 1967. While the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Commandant 8th Bt R A.G. (IR) Jodhpur, he was served with the order dated 22nd Jan, 1973, passed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The said order reads as under:-

"Whereas Shri Sultan Singh, Asstt. Commandant, has completed 25 years of qualifying service.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the State Government hereby requires Shri Sultan Singh by payment So him of three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months previous notice, to retire from the service on the date of receipt of this order by him.

A bank draft of the amount of Rs. 2760/- in respect of three months pay and allowances in liew of three months previous notice is enclosed."
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules on the ground that it is violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution and Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the circulars dated 14th August, 1958, 19/26th April, 1972 and 19th June, 1972 issued by the Government of Rajasthan. The validity of the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 27th January, 1973 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including the ground that it was passed malafide and for extraneous considerations.

4. In so far as the constitutional validity of Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules is concerned, it may be observed that since after the filing the writ petition the Supreme Court, in Tara Singh etc. v. State of Rajas than and Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1487 has negatived the challenge to the validity of the aforesaid Rule on the ground that it is violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 19, 31 and 311(2) of the Constitution. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press his challenge to Rule 244(2) on the ground that it was violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 311(2) of the Constitution.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, challenged the validity of Rule 241(2) on the ground that it was violative of the provisions of Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 in as much as under the impugned Rule, the conditions of service of the petitioner, which were applicable immediately before the appointed day i e. 1st November, 1956, had been varied to the disadvantage of the petitioner without obtainin