ORDER
1. These appeals are by certificate granted by the High Court of Madras since the High Court was of the opinion that the question involved for decision relates to the power of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to amend its regulations framed under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
2. The material facts are only a few. The appellants were initially appointed Junior Assistants and were then promoted to the post of Assistants and were awaiting their turn for promotion to the next higher post of Accountant. According to the regulations framed by the Board, the passing of the prescribed test was one of the qualifications required for promotion as an Accountant. The appellants having passed the prescribed test were, therefore, eligible for further promotion to the post of Accountant and were awaiting their turn for being considered for promotion as Accountants. During the period that regulation was in force, because of this prescription therein, those Assistants who had not passed the prescribed test were not qualified to be promoted as Accountants. It appears that the number of such ineligible Assistants, on account of they not having passed the prescribed test, was large and this led the Board to consider the question of amendment of the regulations to remove the requirement of passing the prescribed test as a condition of eligibility for promotion to the post of Accountant. The Board in 1980 amended the relevant regulation with retrospective effect from 1-5-1979 reducing the qualification for promotion to the post of Accountant insofar as it required the passing of the prescribed test. As a result of this amendment, those persons who had hoped to get promotion earlier than their seniors in the same cadre on account of having passed the prescribed test felt frustrated since they were deprived of the edge they had for promotion over their seniors in the same cadre who had not passed the prescribed test.
3. In the writ petitions filed in the High Court of Madras challenging this amendment, made in the regulations, the High Court has quashed the retrospective operation of the amended regulation confining its operation only to the future promotions. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellants have preferred these appeals by certificate.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no interference with the impugned order made by the High Court is called for in the present case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the appellants who are all persons awaiting promotion are entitled to the benefit of the unamended regulations on account of having passed the prescribed test prior to the amendment so made. They contend that the amendment in the regulations cannot deprive them of the right accrued to them of getting the promotion earlier because of having passed the test which some of their seniors had not passed. This is the foundation of the appellants' claim in these appeals.
6. In our opinion, there is no real foundation for such an argument in the present case. The appellants on passing the test had merely a hope or expectation to be considered for promotion earlier than their seniors who had not passed that test if and when the selections were held for promotion to the post of Accountant during the continuance of the unamended regulation. However, that stage of consideration for selection never reached, irrespective of the fact whether there were vacancies available in the cadre of Accountants to be filled or not. The appellants do not belong to the category who had already been selected for promotion under the unamended regulation; and were merely awaiting the orders for promotion on the basis of the selection already made. That stage not having reached in the present case, the appellants had, at best, a mere hope or expectation of getting the benefit of the unamended regulation which hope was belied as a result of the amendment of the regulation prior to the stage when the appellants could be considered for promotion as Accountants during the period of application of the unamended regulation. It is well settled that a mere hope or expectation to get the benefit of a provision is not a right accrued which could be saved under the unamended regulation so as to enure to the benefit of the appellants even after its amendment in the above manner (See Director of Public Works v. Ho Po Sang1.) These appeals must, therefore, fail.
7. We may, however, observe that notwithstanding the dismissal of these appeals, the respondent-Tamil Nadu Electricity Board may examine whether it is feasible to give some other benefit to the appellants and others similarly placed on account of the fact that they had passed the earlier prescribed test much prior to the amendment of the regulation.
8. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.
1 (1961) 2 All ER 721 : (1961) 3 WLR 39 : 1961 AC 901