JUDGMENT : 1. By the Court-The main point for consideration in this bunch of petitions is as to whether selection of teachers is to be made on the basis of advertisement issued some three years ago or on the basis of qualifications for the posts statutorily amended relaxing certain essential qualifications, few months prior to issuance of interview letters. The supplementary questions arising out of the same are as to whether a fresh advertisement should have been issued or interview in respect of vacancies which existed then should have been on the basis of qualifications as it existed then. In this bunch of petitions it is to be noticed that the Education Commission has adopted even unconstitutional and contradictory process of selection. In some cases on the basis of same advertisement, interview took place while in some of the cases interview took place on the basis of changed and relaxed qualifications. 2. For the post of appointment of Lecturers in the associated colleges or degree colleges regulations were framed by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission. The State Government issued a notification dated 12-10-88, amending the first statutes of the Lucknow University. Clause 11, 13 (1) and 11.13 (3) of the said Statutes provide, minimum qualification for the post of Lecturer. By the said notification essential qualifications as mentioned above namely Ph. D. and M. Phil. were dropped. In some of the cases advertisement was issued earlier and selection took place on the basis of advertisement, while in some cases fresh advertisement was issued after amendment of statutes referred to above and that is why it has been challenged by means of this writ petition. The advertisement in question was issued before the said amendment but selection took place after the amendment came into force. It is not, the amended qualifications which enlarge the field of eligibility but it is the unamended qualifications, on the basis of which the advertisement was issued and on the basis of which selection shall be made. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Dr. V. R. Pal v. State of J. and K., 1984 (1) SCC 160. In the said case the minimum qualifications as required in the advertisement inviting the applications for admission in M.D. course was given. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Dr. V. R. Pal v. State of J. and K., 1984 (1) SCC 160. In the said case the minimum qualifications as required in the advertisement inviting the applications for admission in M.D. course was given. But subsequently the qualifications were ' changed with the result that the doctor who approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court failed to satisfy the Government Order regarding which no reference was made in the advertisement even though it was in existence. The court held that minimum eligibility required by the advertisement inviting applications should be the basis of selection. The reasoning given in the said case fully apply in this case. In the case of Smt. Swaran Lata v. Union of India, 1979 (3) SCC 165 , it was held that no relaxation in the qualifications can be made when advertisement has duly been issued inviting applications and persons possessing the qualifications advertised, as prescribed by the rules, are available and have submitted their applications. 3. It is always possible to the State Government to change qualifications or relax qualifications, but whenever qualifications are changed and interview is taken and appointments on its basis are made, obviously fresh applications on the basis of changed qualifications can be invited and then appointments should be made. The qualifications mentioned in advertisement cannot be changed at the tims of selection, but the same can be made at the time of issuing advertisement which would enable all eligible persons to apply for the same. 4. The main question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether in pursuance of an advertisement issued in the year 1986, selection by way of interview, in the year 1989, on the basis of amended qualifications as laid down in advertisement was valid or invalid. THE relaxation in qualification was made in the year 1988 and even then process of selection did not progress any further and advertisement remained rather a dead letter during this long period. One who was qualified at the time of advertisement shall continue to be qualified for the said purpose even if by lapse of time he became over-age. Thus it is always open to the appointing authority to change the conditions and offer appointments on the vacant posts. One who was qualified at the time of advertisement shall continue to be qualified for the said purpose even if by lapse of time he became over-age. Thus it is always open to the appointing authority to change the conditions and offer appointments on the vacant posts. The Lucknow University by means of a resolution decided that as far as possible, selection should be made within a period of one year from the date of advertisement. But in this case because of non-functioning of the Commission much delay has been caused. With this legal position the facts of each case are to be seen. In Writ Petition No. 1130 of 1989 (Dr. Leena Khare v. U. P. Higher Education Service Commission) the complaint of the petitioner is that the process of selection as contained in advertisement dated 12-10-88, without issuing fresh notification on the basis of advertisement issued on 2- 8-86 and without altering conditions of appointment, the Commission had no jurisdiction to apply new qualifications as contained in notification dated 12-10-1988 and the same vitiates entire selection. 5. In the case of Dr. Suman Bajpai (Writ Petition No. 1730 of 1989), her case is that she was appointed on ad-hoc basis on 16-11-87 as Lecturer in Hindi on the basis of interview which was taken by the Manager without any expert and she continued to work till 15-5-88. Thereafter the college again made an advertisement and applications were invited. The petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis upto 28-2-89 or till the candidate appointed by the Commission joined the post, whichever was earlier. 6. In the case of Km. Veena Srivastava (Writ Petition no. 2583 of 1989), her complaint is that the Commission was not competent to proceed with the selection on the basis of advertisement issued in the year 1986 and has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 1 to readvertise the post of Lecturer in Faculty of Education in accordance with the changed qualifications as contained in Notification dated 12-10-1988. Rajeev Shukla (Writ Petition no. 2641 of 1989) has also prayed that selection could not be made on the basis of advertisement which was issued earlier to amendment of the qualifications, and the Commission ought to have advertised posts afresh as per changed qualifications 7. Similar prayer has been made by Dr. (Km.) Madhurima in Writ Petition no 2696 of 1989. 2641 of 1989) has also prayed that selection could not be made on the basis of advertisement which was issued earlier to amendment of the qualifications, and the Commission ought to have advertised posts afresh as per changed qualifications 7. Similar prayer has been made by Dr. (Km.) Madhurima in Writ Petition no 2696 of 1989. In pursuance of advertisement of the year 1986. she applied for the post in question although she was not M. Phil. but she Had been awarded Ph. D. Degree in Business Administration from the Faculty of Commerce in November, 1987 and she was appointed on the post of Lecturer on adhoc basis in Manila Vidyalaya Degree College, Lucknow with effect from 28-11-1987. It may be stated that the petitioner passed High School, Intermediate and B. A. examination in 1st Division securing 68%, 71% and 60% marks respectively and M. A. Economics from Lucknow University by securing 58% marks. She has contended that after lapse of three years, selection could not be made on the basis of advertisement of 1986 and fresh advertisement should have been issued. She has also placed reliance on the resolution of the Executive Council of Lucknow University dated 23-3-88 which resolved that as far as possible all appointments be made within a year of the advertisement and in case this is not possible, for any particular reason, the post be- re-advertised, provided, steps, for finalisation of dates. have not been, meanwhile, taken. As the advertisement in question was issued in the year 1986 when the vacancies were existing but for the reasons mentioned above, including due to non functioning of the Commission, interview could not take, place and in the year 1989 selection process started, on the basis of amended statutes and some on the basis of un-amended statutes. When for three years no selection was made and in the meantime qualifications were changed, the opposite parties should have issued fresh advertisement. Obviously those who were qualified when the vacancies occurred and they had also applied, they cannot be deprived from the selection process despite change of qualifications. 8. In view of above, the writ petitions are allowed. The advertisement dated 2-8-1986 in question is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh advertisement and hold fresh interview taking into consideration the applications of those who had already applied in pursuance of 1986 advertisement. 8. In view of above, the writ petitions are allowed. The advertisement dated 2-8-1986 in question is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh advertisement and hold fresh interview taking into consideration the applications of those who had already applied in pursuance of 1986 advertisement. However, there will be no order as to costs. After the judgment was pronounced, Sri S. C. Misra, learned counsel for the Higher Education Commission stated that writ petition no. 2696 of 1989 has become infructuous as advertisement for the said post has been withdrawn We have already given certain directions in our judgment in this behalf regarding fresh selection. The said writ petition in these circumstances will be deemed to have become infructuous but the directions given in our judgment shall apply for all these cases.. This order shall also be a part of the judgment. 9. Soon after the judgment was pronounced, Sri S. C. Misra learned counsel for the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission prayed for issue of a certificate to file Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In our view, our judgment does not raise any substantial question of general importance to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such the certificate prayed for is refused.