Case: Cmd/Chairman,. B.S.N.L.  Vs. Mishri Lal

The respondents 1 to 9 herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court praying for quashing of the Recruitment Rules 2005 as well as the letters by which the writ petitioners were told to appear in the Limited Internal Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of Raj Bhasha Adhikari AD(OL) which was to be held under the supervision of the CGMT UP(East), Circle , Lucknow as well as issuing a writ of mandamus restraining the appellants herein from interfering in the working of the respondents as AD(OL) on their respective posts and to continue to pay them their salaries. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by the impugned judgment and hence this appeal.

Reasoning: We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because, Law and Equity as well as Honesty and Fair Play jointly provide support of the petitioners contention, that once it has been laid down in the old Rules (Rule 10(iv) that they will not be changed for three years, respondent No. 3 BSNL, who is a Government of India enterprise, cannot change the Rules before expiry of three recruitment years, and cannot formulate a new set of Rules detrimental to the interests of the petitioners. This undertaking given by the respondent No. 3 in the earlier Rules, is sacrosanct, and the respondent No. 3 is bound to honour the same. They cannot and should not be allowed to say, a good-bye from the same. If they wanted to retain the right to change the Rules, they should not have given an undertaking by framing sub-rule(iv) of Rule 10 of the Old Rules. But once they have given this assurance in the Rules, they respondents cannot and should not be allowed to turn around and resile from the same22. We are of the opinion that the above observations are not sustainable. When Rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, no undertaking need be given to anybody and the Rules can be changed at any time. For instance, if the retirement age is fixed by rules framed under Article 309, that can be changed subsequently by an amendment even in respect of employees appointed before the amendment. Hence, we cannot accept the view taken by the High Court. There is no question of equity in this case because it is well settled that law prevails over equity if there is a conflict. Equity can only supplement the law, and not supplant it. As the Latin maxim states Dura lex sed lex which means The law is hard, but it is the law.