The main legal point established in the judgment is that a retrospective amendment cannot take away the vested right of a person, especially when it affects their fundamental right to promotion. The court emphasized that the rights of the affected employees could not be deprived by such an amendment.

The petitioners were recruitted through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Typist and they were posted in various departments originally under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial service. After serving as Typist (for a period ranging between three years to nine years) they opted to come to Tamil Nadu Secretariat service through recruitment by transfer in 1993 as this post was the entry level post and allotted to the Secretariat. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioners entry into the Tamil Nadu Secretariat service was considered only on their forfeiting their previous service for seniority in the post of Typist in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. According to the petitioners, they opted to enter into Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service with the found hope of serving the secretariat, which provides them more avenues for promotion and other benefits. It is also to be pointed out that this class of persons by transfer of service are very meager numbering about 49 candidates only. It was also made clear that once the petitioners joined services of Secretariat by transfer of service, their further pay and promotion will have to be worked out as per the Rules and Government order concerning the same. In fact, the petitioners have joined duty in the original parent body right from the years 1982, 1984, 1987 and 1990 respectively. At the time of their entry into Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service, there was no scope in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service Rules for filling up the post of Assistant by direct recruitment. It is only the Typist, Personal Clerks and others who had the qualification namely graduation with technical qualification will be selected as Assistant by themethod of promotion from the feeder category by recruitment by transfer. In fact, Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service is governed by Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India with effect from 12.04.1988. Furthermore, on 09.02.1990 by G.O.Ms. No.71, P & AR Department, on the recommendations of the administrative reforms committee, the Government amended Tamil Nadu Secretariat Rules and abolished the system of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant. The Special Rules were amended by invoking Article 309 of the Constitution of India with effect from 09.02.1990. Therefore, there was no scope for any fresh appointment in future for the post of Typist, which has been given effect to in the Government letter dated 03.04.1995 also. Hence, the petitioners were the last and only batch expecting their promotion as Assistant. The petitioners chance for promotion, which is recognised as the fundamental Rules by the Court is being now denied by a subsequent retrospective amendment. As the petitioners joined service as typist by recruitment by transfer, they were the feeder category to the post of Assistant. Subsequently, after the petitioners joined the service, the Government issued GO Ms.No. 315, P& AR dated 19.08.1993 under which the Government issued administrative orders and introduced direct recruitment to the post of Assistant and fixed 50% quota for direct recruitment. Thereafter, G.O. Ms. No.58, P & AR Department dated 20.02.1995 was passed by which the prescription as typewritting qualification was modified for the post of Assistant. By administrative order dated 29.11.1995, made in G.O. Ms. No.362, the Government prescribed method of appointment and fixed 50% quota for direct recruitment and other 50% allotted to four categories. Here again, it was specifically stated that amendment to the special Rules should be made in view of the fact that they were given promotion and making qualification for direct recruitment. This was challenged by the petitioners and others in two Original Applications namely O.A. No. 9448 of and 9886 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on the ground that Special Rules are not amended under Article 309 of the Constitution of India hence, it cannot be invoked. By order