Argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that earlier when the petitioners were initially appointed under limited relaxation for the purpose of adhoc appointment on 04.03.1993, they were continued in service and while are continuing in service, Rule was amended to regularize the criteria and thus petitioners, from date of amendment carried out in the year 1999, became eligible to the post on which they were initially appointed on 04.03.1999. A subsequent amendment, which was carried out on 08.07.2009, as is stood on that day, denied the petitioners’ claim of regular appointment from 04.03.1993, but the respondents again amended the Rule vide notification dated 18.02.2019 by giving retrospective effect to the relaxed eligibility criteria. As retrospective effect was given from 16.07.1991, for all legal and practical purposes, the petitioners were qualified for appointment to the post of Junior Instructor (Non-Engineering Trade) on the date, they were actually appointed on 04.03.1993. Therefore, it is contended that, the amendment in the Rule carried out vide notification dated 08.07.2009 to the extent it declared that appointment shall be effective from the date of issuance of such appointment order, became inapplicable to the petitioners. As the Rule was not amended to bring it in informity with subsequent amendment in the year 2019, it is manifestly arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is prayed, that rule may be declared as unconstitutional as the deeming fiction by giving retrospective effect to relax the minimum eligibility criteria would become Otiose and meaningless.
