P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants-original petitioners were called for selection by the District Employment Officer. Sabarkantha for preparing a select list for appointment to the posts of Armed Police Constables on 3-8-1957 and they were subjected to physical test checking of testimonials written test and oral interview from 22-12-1987 to 24 and all the appellants were select. All the appellants has passed Standard VI examination as required by Rule 31 (i) of Constables (Armed Branch Unarmed Branch and Women Branch) Recruitment Rules. 1979 framed under Sec. 5 (b) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 None of them passed S. S. C. Exam. Out of this list 42 candidates were appointed in the month of February. 1928 and thereafter the selection list was not operated or utilised till 19-8-1988 and on 20-8-1988. 15 more candidates were appointed from the select list. These 15 candidates were the persons who had passed S. S. C. examination and the persons who had not passed S. S. C. examination were not appointed. The Select list is operative for a period of one year or till the next select list is prepared whichever is earlier. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid statutory rules were amended by Amendment Rules of 1988 by notification published on 19-2-1988 (Annexure C to the petition) By the Amendment Rule 3 (h) was amended so as to provide that to he eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post at Constable the candidate must have passed Secondary School Certificate Examination or its equivalent. It appears that the Director General of police by his letter dated 7/09/1988 had instructed the District Superintendent of police to cancel the entire select list. The direction seams to have been given in the light of The amended rules after the selection list was prepared but before the appointments were made. But for the cancellation. the select list would have continued till 23-12-1988. Immediately after cancellation of the list the appellants-petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No. 6847 of 1988 which was summarily dismissed by the learned single judge on 28-10-1988 observing as follows:petitioners were Included in the select list of Armed Constables. Petitioners have not been appointed on the post in question on the ground that they are non S. S. C. i. e. they have not passed the S. S. C. examination. Petitioners have not been appointed on the post in question on the ground that they are non S. S. C. i. e. they have not passed the S. S. C. examination. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the rules prescribing criteria criteria for the post of Armed Constables have been amended on Feb. 19 1988 As peg the provisions of the amended rules non S. S. C. candidates are not eligible for being appointed on the post of armed Constables. Therefore If the respondent authorities have not appointed the petitioners though Included in the list prepared earlier. It cannot be said that the action is arbitrary or unjust. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved hereby the original petitioners have preferred this Letters Patent appeal and it is submitted that the amendment of the rule is prospective and not retrospective and the selection which is already made on the basis of the unamended rule cannot be cancelled on the basis of the subsequently amended rule all therefore it cannot deprive the candidates of appointment who were qualified for selection and were already placed on the select list Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka AIR 1990 SC 405 . ( 4 ) ON the other band the learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that although the rule is not retrospective and it is only prospective it applies to all the appointments to be made after the amended rule has come into force and it is submitted that the language of the rule is to be eligible for appointment xxx xxx the candidate must have passed Secondary School Certificate Examination or its equivalent and it is submitted that this amended rule having come into force on 19-2-1988 no candidate is eligible for appointment unless he has passed S. S. C examination. ( 5 ) IT is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in respect of the same select list another Special Civil Application No 8412 of 1988 was filed by the candidates of the same select list who had passed Sec. examination it was allowed by the learned single Judge by his judgment in the case of Pandya Jashwantlal v. D. S. P. Sabarkantha decided on 31-8-1989 [1990 (1) 3 (1) GLR 515] and in that case the learned single Judge had directed the District Superintendent of Police to consider the petitioners of that petition for appointment as Armed Police Constables and while considering the District Superintendent of Police was directed to verify the educational qualification of the petitioners and to satisfy whether each of the petitioner Satisfied the requisite educational qualification as per the amended rules and it was further directed that if the petitioners or any one of them do not satisfy the said requisite educational qualification the question of considering such petitioner or petitioners for appointment does not arise This judgment of the learned single Judge has been confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 314 of 1989 by the Division Bench it is therefore submitted that the respondents authorities sro complying with the amended rule and the directions of the learned single Judges and of the Division Bench in respect of the same select list. ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the amended rule which is prospective applies to the appointment made after the commencement of the amended rule and therefore after the commencement of the amended rules the present appellants who have not passed S. S. C examination art not eligible to be appointed might appear to be attractive plausible and appealable. In fact in similar circumstances it had appealed to Karnataka Administrative Tribunal However the Supreme Court had reversed the same in the case of P. Mahendran (supra) in that case the statutory rules provided for the minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector which was Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineer. In fact in similar circumstances it had appealed to Karnataka Administrative Tribunal However the Supreme Court had reversed the same in the case of P. Mahendran (supra) in that case the statutory rules provided for the minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector which was Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineer. In accordance with these roles applications were invited by the Public Service Commission for selection and selection process had started and interviews were held in the meanwhile the recruitment rules were amended omitting the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and therefore the candidates who were holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and who were earlier eligible became ineligible for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector. ( 7 ) KARNATAKA Administrative Tribunal held that after the amendment of recruitment rules the Public Service Commission could not make selection or declare the result on the basis of the Rules which existed prior to amendment and as such the selection of candidates holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering was illegal as holders of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering ceased to be eligible for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector after the commencement of the amended rules. However the Supreme Court reversed the same observing as follows. In view of these facts the sole question for consideration is as to whether the amendment made in the Rules on 14/05/1987 rendered the selection illegal. However the Supreme Court reversed the same observing as follows. In view of these facts the sole question for consideration is as to whether the amendment made in the Rules on 14/05/1987 rendered the selection illegal. Admittedly the amending Rule does not contain any provision enforcing the amended Rule with retrospective effect in the absence of any express provision contained in the amending Rule it must be held to be prospective in nature the Rules which are prospective in nature cannot take away or Impair the right of candidates holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as on the date of making appointments as well as on the date of scrutiny by the Commission they were qualified for selection and appointment in fact then the selection in the normal course would have been finalised much before the amendment of Rules but for the interim orders of the High Court If there had been no interim orders the selected candidates would have been appointed must before the amendment of Rules Since the public of selection had commenced and it could not be completed on account of the interim orders of the Court the appellant right to selection and appointment could not be defeated by subsequent amendment of Rules. In view of this finding and pronouncement by the Supreme Caught the view taken by the learned single Judge cannot be upheld ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned single Judge while deciding the position of other candidates who had claimed to be satisfying the qualification of S. S. C had expressly directed that if anyone of them did not satisfy the said requirement of educational qualification i. e. S. S. C the question of considering such petitioner for appointment would not arise However in that case the Court had proceeded expressly on the basis that the petitioners claim was that they satisfied oven the amended educational requirement in that case there was no occasion to decide the question which arises in this petition The learned single Judge has not decided whether these amended rules are at all applicable to the selection already made. He has proceeded on the basis that even if the amended rules are applicable those candidates fulfilled the requirement of amended rules also. He has proceeded on the basis that even if the amended rules are applicable those candidates fulfilled the requirement of amended rules also. It is for this reason that the learned single Judge has felt that the entire list could not have been quashed Therefore even if the Government may be complying with the judgment of the learned single Judge which has been confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal there is no decision as to whether the non. S. S. C candidates have any right or claim to be appointed and whether the amended rules can retrospectively result into cancellation of the selection already made ( 9 ) THAT question is an independent question which has to be decided in this Letters Patent Appeal and it is to be answered in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of P. Mahendran (supra) ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that this Court while allowing that petition has issued a mandamus directing the respondents-authorities to give appointments to the petitioners forthwith or within a short fixed period This question as to whether and what mandamus can be issued was considered by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid case of Pandya Jashwantlal (supra ). The learned single Judge has referred to and relied Upon the observations of the Supreme Court and held as follows (at page No 527 of (GLR) :in the State of Haryana v. Subash Chandra Marwaha AIR 1973 SC 2216 while agreeing with the observations in the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur (supra) it is observed by the Supreme court that. . . . . . in order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something it must be shown that the statute Imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance Since there is no legal duty on the state Government to appoint all the 15 persons enforce are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under th rules to enforce its performance the petition is clearly misconceived in Jatinder Kumar (supra) the supreme court while agreeing with above views in Subash Chandra Marwahas case (supra) observed that no such right 12 created which can be enforced by mandamus. 18 Even though it is a right of the petitioners to be considered for the appointment or even to be appointed as the Armed Police Constables it was not the corresponding duty of the appointing authority to appoint and therefore the mandamus cannot be issued to make the appointments of the petitioners this Court therefore should not issue mandamus directing to make the appointment However it is clear that the respondent No. 1 authority did not even consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment as the list was required to be cancelled by arbitrary and unlawful instructions by the respondent No 2 necessary direction should be given and relief to consider for appointment be granted Therefore the learned single Judge had issued a direction setting aside the cancellation of the select list and the respondent-District Superintendent of Police Sabarkantha was directed `to apply mind and consider the petitioners for appointment as Armed Police Constables and it was further directed that the respondent shall not reject the claim of the petitioners for being appointed as Armed Police Constable only on the ground that the period of one year has expired and the select list has cased to be operative because the respondent had not consider the appointment of the petitioners even during the period of one year and therefore the respondent was directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment as Armed Police Constables within one month of the receipt of writ of the Court This judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench in view of the observations of the Supreme Court and which have been followed by the learned single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench here also similar directions can be given No direction can be given that all the petitioners shall be given appointments nor any direction can be given tat the select list shall be continued to be operative till all the petitioners can be given appointment. However the authorities shall consider the cases on the basis of the fact that the petitioners were eligible and duly selected candidates and their selection list was to be operative for a full period of one year and if there were available vacancies and if they were to be filled in within that period of one year those vacancies shall be filled in in accordance with the select list Such exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from today ( 11 ) IN the result the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge is quashed and set aside and the Special Civil Application No 6847 of 1988 is allowed and the cancellation of the select list is quashed and set aside and the first respondent is directed to consider the case of all the persons in the select list; (S. S. C. as well as non S. S. C.) and shall not reject the claim of any of the persons in the select list on the ground that the period of one year has expired However the select list cannot be contained indefinitely and the respondent shall consider on the basis as if the selection list had been continued for the full year and if the list had not been cancelled how many vacancies were existing and available and which were to be filled in within that year shall be filed in by appointment from the select list as pet the serial order contained therein. The appeal and the petition are allowed accordingly with no order as to costs Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. (KMV) Appeal allowed. .