A retrospective law can take away vested rights if it is enacted by the appropriate authority and does not violate any fundamental rights.

1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3281 of 1977 and 1675 and 2411 of 1978. The facts in the judgment are being given from Civil Writ Petition No. 3281 of 1977.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis in two different departments of the State of Haryana, i. e., petitioners Nos. 1 to 21 in Excise and Taxation department and 22 to 44 in the office of the Controller Printing and Stationery Department, Haryana. They had completed one year of service on March 31, 1977. The President of India vide order dated June 10, 1977, in exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 309 of the Constitution, excluded from the purview of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana all the posts which were held by ad hoc employees on March 31, 1977 and who had completed minimum one years service prior to that date. In view of that the services of the petitioners were regularised in terms of the Presidential Order on various dates by respondent Nos. 2 to 4, the appointing authorities.

3. The Chief Secretary to Government Haryana passed an order dated July 27, 1977, staying with immediate effect the implementation of the order of the President of India, dated June 10, 1977. In view of the order of the Chief Secretary the appropriate authorities namely respondents Nos. 2 to 4 stayed with immediate effect the regularisation of the petitioners. LateV, the Chief Secretary by his order dated Sept. 9, 1977, revoked the Presidential Order. As a consequence thereof, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 revoked the orders, regularising the petitioners vide orders of revocation (Annexures P. 11 to P. 14). The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders. During the pendency of the writ petition the Governor, Haryana State issued a notification dated Dec. 29, 1977 under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India rescinding the order dated June 10, 1977 with effect from June 17, 1977. The petitioners amended the earlier writ petition and challenged the aforesaid order in addition to the earlier orders inter alia on the ground that the petitioners having been regularised had acquired a vested right to hold the posts and the Governor could not take away that right by making an order retrospectively and that the order dated December 29, 1977 is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The writ has been contested by the respondents. Respondent No. 1 in its return said that the order is not violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, it is said, this removes the discrimination which had been created by the order dated June 10, 1977. It is further said that the employees had not acquired any vested right to hold the post and even if there was any, the same has been validly taken away by the order dated Dec. 29, 1977 (copy Annexure P. 15).

4. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners first that the petitioners having been regularised in consequence of the Presidential Order, had acquired a right to hold the posts which could not be taken away by the order dated Dec, 29, 1977 by giving it retrospective operation and secondly, that the Rule enacted vide order dated Dec. 29, 1977, is violative of Arts. 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

5. The first question that arises for determination is as to whether the order dated Dec. 29, 1977, is bad as it takes away the vested rights of the petitioners. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners after enforcement of the Presidential Order dated June 10, 1977, were confirmed by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 as the posts had been taken away from the purview of the Subordinate Services Selection Board. He further submits that the Presidenial Order was circulated on June 17, 1977. Later, it was revoked by the Governor, Haryana, vide order dated Dec. 29, 1977, with effect from June 17, 1977. According to the learned counsel