Government may amend service rules to prescribe specialized qualifications, subject to limited judicial review.

The petitioners were Assistants in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service working in the Fisheries Department.

They possessed the qualification earlier prescribed for appointment by transfer to the post of Sub-Inspector of Fisheries, namely, a degree in Science.

They challenged G.O. Ms. No. 58, dated 10 May 2023, by which the qualification was amended to require a degree in Fisheries Science, or a degree in Science with Zoology as the main or ancillary subject.

The petitioners contended that they were qualified as on 1 May 2023 and that the amended rule should not apply to them.

The Government contended that the amendment operated prospectively and that no Assistant had been appointed by transfer to the post between 1 May and 10 May 2023.

The petitioners sought quashing of the amendment, cancellation of the appointments of Respondents 3 and 4 as Sub-Inspectors of Fisheries, and consideration of their names for appointment by transfer.

1. Whether the amendment to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Subordinate Service, prescribing specialised educational qualifications for appointment by transfer to the post of Sub-Inspector of Fisheries, was arbitrary, unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid.

2. Whether the petitioners, who were allegedly qualified under the pre-amended rule as on 1 May 2023, had a vested right to appointment by transfer under the earlier qualification before the amendment dated 10 May 2023.

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to cancellation of the appointments of Respondents 3 and 4 and to inclusion in the seniority panel for appointment as Sub-Inspectors of Fisheries.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India governing judicial review of executive and statutory-rule-making action, together with the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Fisheries Subordinate Service.

It held that prescription of educational qualifications and eligibility criteria for a government post falls primarily within the Government’s policy and rule-making domain, particularly where specialised qualifications are intended to improve administrative efficiency.

Judicial interference is limited unless the amended rule is shown to be arbitrary, unconstitutional, or otherwise legally infirm.

The Court also applied the principle that appointment by transfer to a post in a different service is an additional avenue and does not create an entitlement overriding the applicable qualifications or the petitioners’ regular promotional avenue in their parent ministerial service.

The Court found that the amended rule rationally introduced specialised qualifications—Fisheries Science or Science with Zoology as the main or ancillary subject—to improve efficiency in the Fisheries Department.

It held that the amendment provided a sufficiently broad range of qualifying degrees and was therefore neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.

The petitioners’ claim based on their earlier eligibility failed because no appointment by transfer had been made between 1 May and 10 May 2023, and mere eligibility under the unamended rule did not establish a vested right to appointment.

Further, the petitioners retained a regular promotional avenue to the post of Superintendent in the Ministerial Service; appointment as Sub-Inspector was only an additional avenue in a different service.

Consequently, the amended qualification did not unlawfully prejudice their regular promotional prospects.

The claims for quashing the amendment, cancelling the appointments of Respondents 3 and 4, inclusion in the seniority panel, and appointment by transfer were rejected.

No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.