S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The constitutional validity of Rr. 9 and 19 of the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service (Group A) Rules, 1979 is sought to be tested on the anvil of Arts. 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India, in this Writ Petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Despite the volume of pleadings, the matter is not in a wide compass and indeed narrows down primarily to the validity of the aforesaid challenged provisions. It, therefore, suffices to notice the facts mainly with regard to the points really in issue. The eight petitioners were appointed as Assistant District Attorneys in Dec. 1972 which posts were designated as Deputy District Attorneys in May, 1976 and they claim to have completed the period of probation successfully on different dates and also to have crossed the departmental efficiency bars. At the time of the appointment and till recently the conditions of service of District Attorneys and Assistant District Attorneys were governed by the Punjab District Attorneys Service Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 1960 Rules) and thereunder rule 9 prescribed the qualifications etc. for recruitment to the service whils