Sub-rule ( 4), it may be pointed out, was added on August 22, 1966 with retrospective effect during the pendency of the writ petitions in the High Court, with the result that the writ petitions were a!lowed to be amended so as to include a challenge to the validity of this amendment. The amendment was assailed on the grounds of ma/a {ides and unconstitutional di;crimination. The validity of the -retrospective operation of this sub-rule was not questioned bdore us by Shri Gokhale, though a lukewarm challenge was suggested before the close of the arguments on the grounds of mala {ides. It may be noted that the requirement of teaching experience as laid down in the University Ordinance also finds place in sub-rule ( 4) of Rule 30 as added in 1966 and it is only the proviso which has the effect of modifying to some extent this condition. The narrow question requiring consideration therefore is whether the proviso, according to which two years of service rendered in the speciality is to be reckoned as equivalent to one year's teaching exp.erience gained in the speciality, must, as contended on behalf of the appellant, yield to the requirement in the Ordinance which prescribes the minimum qualifi0 ation of teaching experience and, therefore, must be ignored. V'ie are unable to uphold the contention. The Coilegiate Branch Rules having been made pursuant to the power conferred by Art. 309 of the Constitution, they must be giv~n full effect subject to the provisions of any Act made by the appropriate Legislature regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Medical Service (Coilegiate Branch). Such Act need not specifically den! with the aforesaid Medical Services but it must be an Act as contemplated bv Art. 309 by or under which p:ovision is made regulating the recruitment and conditions of service taking within its fold the said Medical Services.
