Judgment U.P.Singh, J. 1. After hearing the petitioners, the intervenors as also the learned Advocate-General for the respondents, both the writ applications are disposed of by this common order, since the question involved is one and similar. 2. In these writ applications under Articles 229 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the respondent State in the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 7-1-1991 contained in Annexure-8, whereby the resolution of the respondent State dated 31-10-1990 contained in Annexure-8 is purported to be given retrospective effect, and which in terms, adversely affect the selection of the petitioners made in September, 1990, A writ of mandamus has been prayed for issuing suitable direction and commanding the respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners for appointment in the Subordinate Education Service, for which they were declared successful by the "Bihar Awar Sewa Chayan Parishad" (hereinafter referred to as "Chayan Parishad"). 3. In its letter dated 8-1-1988, the Director-cum-Additional Secretary. Primary Education addressed to the chairman of the Chayan Parishad made a requisition for making recommendation for appointment to 424 posts in the Subordinate Education Service (Primary Education cadre). Consequently, applications were invited through an advertisement in the local dailies on 30-5-1988 for appointment to those posts. Out of 424 posts, 212 were for unreserved category and the rest 212 were for the reserved category. These 424 vacancies notified by the respondent state was of the year 1986. In the year 1988, 240 more vacancies existed, As such, by letter dated 7-8-1990 the Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Primary Education, addressed to the Chairman, Chayan Parishad, made further requisition for the additional 240 posts in the said cadre. Thus, recommendation in respect of total 664 vacancies was called for. The petitioners and others, fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed for such appointment to the posts advertised by the Chayan Parishad, applied for appointment to the said posts. They were called to appear at a written test, which was the only test prescribed in the aforesaid advertisement, there being no oral inteview prescribed for it. They appeared at the written test on 8-7-1989 and 9-7-1989 conducted by the Chayan Parishad. On 22-9-1990 the results of the written test were published on the notice board by the Chayad Parishad and all the petitioners were declared successful. They appeared at the written test on 8-7-1989 and 9-7-1989 conducted by the Chayan Parishad. On 22-9-1990 the results of the written test were published on the notice board by the Chayad Parishad and all the petitioners were declared successful. On 18-11-1990, the results were published in the different newspapers. Altogether 664 candidates were declared successful, out of whom 314 were of the general category and the test belonged to the reserved category. All the petitioners belonged to the general category and figured in the aforesaid 314 candidates of the general category. Having been declared successful the petioners were awaiting the letter of appointment after verification of their testimonials. On 12-12-1990, the Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development, Department, addressed to different officials stating that in the first week; of January, 1991, the Chief Minister will distribute the appointment letters to these 664 persons including the petitioners. On 20th September, 1990, a notice was also published In the daily Hindustan by the Director of the Primary Education regarding verification of testimonials of these 664 candidates selected for appointment in the "Awar Shiksha Sewa (Annaxure-9). The petitioners along with others appeared on the appointed date for verification of the testimonials, which were found to be correct. Somehow, although the petitioners were awaiting the receipt of the appointment letters, it was not received by them. 4. It would be relevant to mention that the reservation of seats in different services of the State is in accordance with the resolution of the respondent State in Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department bearing Nos. 756 and 757 dated 10-11-1978. As per the resolution, if candidates of the reserved category came in the merit list in excess of the vacancies reserved for them then they were not to be denied appointment. It was in this view of the matter that even though there were only 332 vacancies in the reserved category in the aforesaid list, 350 candidates of the reserved category were declared sucessful and recommended for appointment. 5. It appears that in the context of the earlier resolution No. 756 dated 10-11-1978, the respondent State in the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department took out another resolution of 31-10-1990 (Annexure-7). 5. It appears that in the context of the earlier resolution No. 756 dated 10-11-1978, the respondent State in the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department took out another resolution of 31-10-1990 (Annexure-7). By this resolution an amendment was purported to be made in the earlier resolution of the respondent State, whereunder, reserved category candidates, who came in the merit list, were not to be counted in the reserved category. This resolution wag made effective from 1-11-1990. 6. It may be noticed that the posts on which the petitioners were to be appointed were advertised in the year 1988, the examination for the same were held in the year 1989, and the results were published in September, 1990, Thus, the aforesaid resolution could not be made applicable in the case of the petitioners. The petitioners appointment had to be made in terms of the advertisement and the aforesaid resolution contained in Annexure-7 was prospective from 1-11-1990. But, the Secretary of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department issued a letter on 7-1-1991 (Annexure-8) whereby, the aforesaid resolution dated 31-10-1990 (Annexure-7) was applied retrospectively stating that in all cases, where appointment letters have not been issued prior to 1-11-1990 would be brought within the purview of the aforesaid resolution. 7. It is relevant to mention that the Secretary, Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board, by his letter dated 8-1-199, had informed the Director Primary Education that the result of the examination had been published on 22-9-1990 and that the new policy for reservation was made effective from 1-11-1990. He further pointed out that a number of candidate declared successful had given up their earlier employment after the publication of their results and, it would not be proper to change the recommendation in accordance with the new reservation policy. He requested that the process of appointment be completed and intimation of the same may be sent to the Board. A copy of the said letter dated 8-1-1991 has been annexed marked Annexure-10. 8. An amendment application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners stating that after filing of the writ application on 25-1-1991, the petitioners duly produced the certificates of filing before respondent No. 4 with a prayer that no further action be taken until disposal of the writ application. 8. An amendment application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners stating that after filing of the writ application on 25-1-1991, the petitioners duly produced the certificates of filing before respondent No. 4 with a prayer that no further action be taken until disposal of the writ application. But, in hot haste, the respondent, with a view to adversely affect the right and interest of the petitioners, brought out another list of the alleged successful candidates for appointment to the Bihar Subordinate Education Service in question. On 4-2-1991, the said list was put up on the Notice Board of the Chayan Parishad and the same day the respondent No. 4 forwarded its recommendation to the State in the Primary Education Department. A copy of the letter has been annexed marked Annexure-11. By this action of the respondeat, 71 persons belonging to the reserved category were purported to be brought in place of the general category candidates, including the petitioners, when, admittedly, they would be much in excess of the quota of seats reserved for them and, when, admittedly, they secured lesser marks than the general category candidates, including these petitioners. A copy of the resolution dated 1-2-1991 has been annexed marked Annexure 12. In the situation, these 71 persons through the Chairman of the Chayan Parishad have been impleaded as necessary parties. It may be noticed that whereas in the case of the petitioners, respondent No. 4 took 11/2 months to send its recommendation after the results were put up on the Notice Board, in the case of the candidates of the reserved category, respondent No. 4 sent its recommendation on the same day on which it was put up on the Notice Board. An intervention petition was also filed by the President and the Secretary of the Subordinate Education Service (Elementary Branch) Selected Candidates Association, Patna. They represented the case of the selected candidates out of the advertisement No. 5/88 whose results has been circulated by on Board on 22-9-1990 and 2-11-1990. They have reiterated the stand of the petitioners and strenuously urged that the process of selection had already been completed and all the necessary formalities for appointment had been finalised, and, therefore, the right and interest of these petitioners for appointment should not be jeopardised. It was submited that out of the total anticipated 664 vacancies 332 candidates were under the general category. It was submited that out of the total anticipated 664 vacancies 332 candidates were under the general category. The explanation of unreserved category has been re-defined by the State in its Notification No. 133 dated 31-10-1990 (Annexure-7) issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, but, by an arbitrary order dated 7-1-1991, (Annexure-8), the right and interest of these petitioners, who were duly selected for appointment in September, 1990, has been adversely affected. 9. The impugned letter issued by the Secretary of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 7-1-1991 contained in An- nexure-8 has been assailed by the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional as also without jurisdiction. 10. The Secretary of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department is certainly not competent to amend/alter the earlier resolution issued by an order of the Governor. Annexure-7 was a resolution of the State Government issued by an order of the Governor. This resolution was made by the respondent State in the personnel and Administrative Reforms Department on 31-10-1990 (Annexure-7) in the context of the earlier resolution bearing No. 756 dated 10-11-1978. By this resolution contained in Annexure-7 an amendment was purported to be introduced in the earlier resolution of 1978 and it was now provided that the reserved category candidates who are selected in the merit list were not to be counted in the reserved category. This resolution (Annexure-7) was brought into effect from 1-11-1990. Therefore, in the present case, the aforesaid resolution was not applicable in the case of the petitioners. Their appointment had to be made in terms of the advertisement issued for their selection and appointment. The posts on which the petitioners were to be appointed were advertised in the year 1988, the examination for the purpose was held in the year 1989 and the results were published in September, 1990. The aforesaid resolution (Annexure-7) was to be made effective prospectively from 1-11-1990. But the Secretary of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, on his own issued a letter dated 7-1-1991 (Annexure-8) giving retrospective effect to the resolution issued by an order of the Governor contained in Annexure-7, In the said letter, the Secretary of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department stated that all cases where appointment letters had not been issued prior to 1-11-1990 would be governed and brought within the purview of the said letter contained in Annexure-8. The contention on behalf of the State was that the letter contained in Annexure-8 issued by the Secretary himself is only explaining the manner in which the reservation shall be calculated and it is only a method of calulation which has been explained in the said letter. It is difficult to accept this contention. It is obvious from the contents of Annexure-8, the letter issued by the Secretary himself that in the garb of explaining the method in the calculation of reservation, he adversely affected the right of the petitioners to be considered for their appointment and it was thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The impugned letter (Annexure-8) issued by the Secretarary of the said department was patently arbitrary because he was not competent to amend and/or alter the resolution issued by an order of the Governor contained in Aunexure-7. The Secretary acted without jurisdiction and witihout authority in law to give retrospective effect to the resolution issued by an order of the Governor dated 31-10-1990 contained in Annexure-7, which, in terms, was to take effect from 1-11-1990. By giving such retrospeative effect the vested right of the petitioners for being considered for their appointment was illegally and arbitrarily taken away. The process of selection/having been initiated and completed as per the terms of the advertisement and the rules/regulation/ resolutions then existing, the same could not be altered retrospectively by the Secretary himself. The petitioners were duly selected and ware awaiting issuance of their letters of appointment. The Secretary had also informed the Director by his letter dated 8-1-1991 that the result of the examination had been published on 22-9-1990 and that the new policy of reservation was made effectively only from 1-11-1990. It was further painted out that a number of candidates had given up their earlier appointment on account of their being declared successful and that it would not be proper to change the recommendation in accordance with the new policy. He, therefore, requested that the process of appointment be completed and intimation be sent to the Board. The petitioners have also asserted that having acted on the basis of the advertisement issued by the State and selected for appointment, the process of which had been completed, they cannot be denied their appointment and many of them, in this long process, have now become overage for appointment in the Government service. 11. The petitioners have also asserted that having acted on the basis of the advertisement issued by the State and selected for appointment, the process of which had been completed, they cannot be denied their appointment and many of them, in this long process, have now become overage for appointment in the Government service. 11. In the fact of the pesent case, therefore, I hold and say that, while issuing of directions is an essential and normal administrative technique in the modren times, and administration today cannot perhaps do without resorting to this technique the weaknenss §and limitation of the sestem from the point of view of the administration should not be minimised. Through directions, any constitutional, fundamental or legal right of an individual cannot be curtailed. A benefit conferred on an individual cannot be diluted by a direction. By issuing the impugned letter/direction dated 7th January, 1991, contained in Annexure-8, the Secretary of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department was not competent and has absolutely no jurisdiction to alter or amend the resoultion issued by and order of the Governor contained in Annexure-7 and he could not have done in retrospetively when in the terms it provided that it would be effective prospectively from 1-11-1990. For a colateral purpose, retrospective operation to the said order of the Governor contained in Annexure-7 was given by the Secretary and the petitioners legal right for being considered for appointment was curtailed and diluted by the impugned letter issued by the Secretary in the garb of explaining the method in calculation of the reservation. 12. In this context, it is relevant to notice a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of N.T. Devinkatti V/s. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. -- and it was said: There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing rules or Government orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing rules and Government orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of publication of advertisement. However he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection much be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The Legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication. If the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidates on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and items contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature. 13. In this view, I quash the order of the respondent State in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 7-1-1991 contained in Annexure-8, I further direct the State Government to issue letters appointment to the petitioners for their appointment in the posts of Subordinate Education Service, for which they were declared successful by the Chayan Parishad. These writ applications are accordingly allowed but there shall be no order at to cost. S.Hoda, J. 14 I agree.