JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J. - In 1977 the petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal, Vide order dated 19-9-1983 petitioner's services were terminated and appeal filed by him was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed against the aforesaid order. The order of termination dated 19-9-1983 is simple order saying that service of petitioner is not required. But from perusal of appellate order it is clear that petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that he does not possess the requisite minimum qualification of High School. Prior to 5-7-1973 Service Rules of 1953 were applicable, and the minimum qualification was junior High School. 2. From appellate order it appears that new Lekhpal Service Rules were enforced with effect from 5-7-1978, whereby minimum qualification was raised from Junior High School to High School. 3. The appellate authority recorded a finding that the petitioner was not appointed in 1977 but appears to have been appointed prior to it. Initial appointment of petitioner either in 1977 or earlier has not been stated to be illegal and it it no body's case that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification at the time of appointment. 4. The appellate authority on the basis of order dated 29-11-1978 has inferred that the petitioner was appointed again on 29-11-1978 and this was after the enforcement of the new rules of 1978. According to undisputed averments the petitioner was appointed in 1977 as Lekhpal and worked in Ajana circle in district Allahabad upto 28-11-1978 and after that from 29-11-1978 the petitioner has worked in Meja Circle of the same district, on account of suspension of Lekhpal working in Meja circle. The petitioner has been working as Lekhpal without any break from 1977. From perusal of order dated 29-11-1978 it appears that on account of suspension of Lekhpal in Meja Circle the petitioner, as a local arrangement, was sent to Meja Circle on appointment by transfer. It cannot be stated to be fresh appointment and in view of facts and circumstances of the case it is deemed to be in continuation of the earlier appointment. 5. The petitioner having been appointed before enforcement of new rule of 1978 he cannot be disqualified on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification laid down by new rules. New rules are not retrospective in operation and in any cannot affect the appointment made prior to their enforcement. 6. 5. The petitioner having been appointed before enforcement of new rule of 1978 he cannot be disqualified on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification laid down by new rules. New rules are not retrospective in operation and in any cannot affect the appointment made prior to their enforcement. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The order dated 19-9-1983 and appellate order dated 24-1-1986 are quashed. Petitioner shall be reinstated in service.