JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat 1. These three writ petitions raise a common question of law and fact. Therefore, these are decided by a common judgment. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the writ petitions, it is necessary to give brief resume of the facts as set out in the writ petition. The writ petitioners of writ petition No. 2807 of 1989 has appeared in a written test conducted for the post of probationary officers in Bidur Gramin Bank. The said posts were advertised in pursuance of the advertisement notice. The written test is said to have been conducted at Bijnor on 6-4-1986 and the result of the same was published on 30-5-1986. The result is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner's name was included in 90 candidates who were declared eligible for appearing in the interview for the post of the probationary officers. Date of interview was to be notified separately. The petitioner was informed that the written test has been cancelled by the Bank at the back of the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that the vacancies for filling up the post of probationary officers were to be filled up for the year 1985. At the end of December, 1985 a notification is said to have been issued that the process for recruitment may be completed if the advertisement for filling up the post was made before 1 -1 -86. This is reflected by Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is stated that there is no justification for cancelling the result of the written test. The process of selection has been deferred deliberately. It is stated that there are still nine vacancies for the post of probationary officers which is evident by Annexure-4. 3. In writ petition No. 18941 of 1988, the petitioners stated that in a terms of advertisement notice dated 14-5-1985 amongst other posts 30 posts of probationary officers were to be filled up by Bidur Gramin Bank, Bijnor. The petitioners being eligible submitted applications and on the basis of the advertisement notice, written test was conducted at Bijnor on 6-4-1986. The result of the written test was declared on 30-5-1986. Among 90 candidates who were declared eligible for interview, the petitioners figured as eligible candidates for being interview, but the petitioners were not interviewed. They were informed that the examination held on 6-4-1986 has been cancelled. The result of the written test was declared on 30-5-1986. Among 90 candidates who were declared eligible for interview, the petitioners figured as eligible candidates for being interview, but the petitioners were not interviewed. They were informed that the examination held on 6-4-1986 has been cancelled. The posts are said to have been advertised for there were vacancies in the year 1985 which were required to be filled up. The posts of probationary officers could be filled up by promoting field supervisors if they had five years' experience as Field Supervisors in the Bank. The Bank was established 1983. Therefore, the Field Supervisors were not eligible for being appointed in 1985 and thereafter, or about three years. On 26-12-85 respondent No. 1 is said to have issued a telegram to the Regional Bank to the effect that after 26th December, 1985, Government of India has decided that recruitment of officers, Field Supervisors and clerks will be done by Banking Service Recruitment Board and no advertisement shall be issued for recruitment of the said posts w.e.f. 1-1-86. In case of advertisement issued before 1-1-86 the process of recruitment may be, completed under the existing arrangement. However, minimum staff were to be recruited to meet the immediate requirement only. On the basis of the aforesaid telegram it is stated that advertisement in the present case was issued on 14-5-85 when the process of selection had commenced and that the process was to be completed. The written test could not be cancelled. In cancelling the written test, the respondents have stated that the Government of India had not permitted the Regional Rural Bank (Bidur Gramin Bank) to recruit the supervisory staff in the year 1987. Therefore, the examination conducted in 1985 was cancelled. However, the petitioners have assailed the reasons given by the respondents for the cancellation of the examination. It is stated that the vacancies were in existence from 1985 to 1986. Moreover, the process of selection was completed in pursuance of advertisement notice dated 14-5-85. Therefore, the reasoning given by the respondents for cancellation of the written test is untenable. Most of the petitioners are said to have become over-age and they can not sit in any other competition. Therefore, the act of the respondents is said to be unjust and bad in law. Nine posts of probationary officers were available. Therefore, the reasoning given by the respondents for cancellation of the written test is untenable. Most of the petitioners are said to have become over-age and they can not sit in any other competition. Therefore, the act of the respondents is said to be unjust and bad in law. Nine posts of probationary officers were available. It is stated that despite the posts having been available, result of the examination conducted in 1985 has been cancelled. Cancellation of the result is said to be arbitrary and illegal. No irregularity was committed by the petitioners in 1985 when their written test was taken, therefore, on the basis of that written test they were entitled to be called for interview and considered to the available vacant posts. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts it is prayed that cancellation of the written test ordered on 29-1-88 may be quashed. Respondent No. 4 may be directed to process the interview for the posts of Probationary officers and after interviewing the petitioners, their results may be declared. The posts of probationary officers may not be filled up and the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioners for the posts. In their counter, the respondents have stated that the Bidur Gramin Bank was constituted by the Punjab National Bank as Sponsor Bank in exercise of powers conferred by it under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act 1976. The Regional Rural Bank, being constituted, is to comply, and be guided by, such directions as may be given by the Central Government after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. 5. It is stated that it was expected by the respondents that there were 50 branches of the Bank in District Bijnor, but instead, only 36 branches were set up. For new branches which were expected to be 50 advertisement was issued in May 1985, for filling up certain posts of probationary officers, Field Supervisors etc. The Reserve Bank of India is the licensing authority for setting up of the Rural Banks. Vide, its communication dated 18-10-1985, the Reserve Bank of India restricted the licensing policy for opening the Rural Banks for the period 1985-90. Since the number of Banks to be set up were reduced, therefore, posts of probationary officers also were reduced which resulted in cancellation of the result of the examination held in 1986. Vide, its communication dated 18-10-1985, the Reserve Bank of India restricted the licensing policy for opening the Rural Banks for the period 1985-90. Since the number of Banks to be set up were reduced, therefore, posts of probationary officers also were reduced which resulted in cancellation of the result of the examination held in 1986. The Reserve Bank has directed that if licences were not utilized already, the licence issued prior to 1985 should be surrendered. Because of the restrictions imposed by the Reserved Bank of India and because no new licence, except one in 1987, was issued, the answering Bank could not absorb the probationary officers and Field Supervisors. Therefore, the result of the candidates for the said posts had to be cancelled under the compelling circumstances created by the Government. 6. It is, denied that the vacancies advertised in May 1985 were for the year 1985 only. The advertisement was for future anticipated vacancies which were likely to occur or which would be created on opening of 50 new branches for which licences were likely to be issued. Since, there was change in the licensing policy and no vacancy occurred in 1985-87 in respect of probationary officers, instructions dated 26-12-85 primafacie required all Regional Rural Banks to recruit their staff through Banking Service Recruitment Board in future. The process of recruitment initiated in 1985 was not required to be completed. That test had to be cancelled and was already cancelled. No departmental candidate was promoted as probationary officer in the year 1986-87. In terms of circular dated 31-12-84, 50 per cent of the total sanctioned vacancy of the probationary officers in the Bank, were to be absorbed out of internal promotion from the existing Field Superviors in the Bank and remaining 50 per cent were to be recruited directly. Nine vacancies out of total vacancies for the post of probationary officers were sanctioned on 22-12-87. These vacancies were notified in July, 1988 and these vacancies were sanctioned on the expectation that business of the Bank would expand and the vacancies were to be filled up for 1989 only. As the result of the examination conducted in 1986 was cancelled, there was no vacancy for the years 1986-87 and because of policy of recruitment had changed w.e.f. 1988, therefore, the petitioners could not be considered for any other vacancy. As the result of the examination conducted in 1986 was cancelled, there was no vacancy for the years 1986-87 and because of policy of recruitment had changed w.e.f. 1988, therefore, the petitioners could not be considered for any other vacancy. In writ petition No. 4005 of 1988, the petitioners case is also similar to one set up in other two writ petitions. 7. In writ petition No. 2807 of 1989, rejoinder and supplementary affidavits have been filed. In the supplementary-affidavits it is stated that in the year 1986, 40 posts of the probationary officers were vacant and these posts were not filled up in that year and these vacancies were carried forward for the years 1987-88. Copy of the proceedings of the Board of Directors dated 23-12-87 is Annexure-SA-1 to the affidavit which is produced as proof of this contention. It is also contended that respondent No. 1 directed respondent No. 2 to fill up the vacancies of the year 1989 only through Banking services Recruitment Board. Vacancies for the previous year i.e. prior to 1989 are to be filled up on the basis of the written test held on 6-4-1986. In Annexure SA-1 it is mentioned that as on 31-12-86 sanctioned staff of the probatioary officers was 55 and as against that 41 were working. This would show that 14 vacancies were available at the end of December, 1986 among the probationary officers. Out of 14 vacancies 7 are to be promoted from the departmental candidates and 7 are reserved for the direct recruitment. 8. The contents of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents are denied by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at great length and record of the case was also examined. The petitioners in all the three writ petitions had appeared in the written test conducted for the posts of probationary officers in pursuance of the advertisement notice dated 14-5-1985. On the basis of the said advertisement a written test was held on 6-4-1986 at Bijnor. The result of the test was declared on 31-5-86. All the petitioners were declared successful in the written test and they had qualified according to the standards set by the respondents for being called for interview which was to be held in respect of these candidates who had qualified in the written test. The result of the written test was published on 31-5-86. All the petitioners were declared successful in the written test and they had qualified according to the standards set by the respondents for being called for interview which was to be held in respect of these candidates who had qualified in the written test. The result of the written test was published on 31-5-86. After the declaration of the result of the written test the petitioners had acquired a right to be called for interview in terms of the advertisement notice dated 14-5-85. The date for conduct of the inierview was to be notified separately. The respondents cancelled the written examination conducted on 6-4-86 in which the petitioners had qualified and had become eligible for being called for interview, by its order which was published in Newspaper on 29-1-88. The cancellation notice of the examination which is common to all the three writ petitions reads as under :- "VIDUR GRAMIN BANK (Sonsored by Punjab National Bank) Head Officer Civil Lines, Bijnor. Notice The Bank advertised in the press in April, 1985 for recruitment of Probationary Officers and Field Supervisors. The result of the successful candidates, who appeared for the test, was published in May, 1986. As per norms of Government of India for recruitment of staff in Regional Rural Banks our Bank was not granted permission for additional recruitment of supervisory staff in 1986 and 1987 is required to be conducted through Banking Services Recruitment Board. In view of the assessment of staff strength requirement as also the change in process of recruitment as per Government quidelines, it has been decided to cancel the above test. All the concerned candidates are requested to note. Inconvenience caused is regretted, Sd/-CHAIRMAN" 9. After the petitioners' result was declared and they were shown to have qualified for being called for interview, the Banking Services Recruitment Board is said to have been empowered to make selection for the employees of the Banking staff and there was no expansion of the Bank as anticipated. Therefore, the written test is said to have been cancelled. It is also stated that there were no vacancies in the years 1986-87, therefore, no appointment could be made on the basis of the advertisement notice dated 14-5-85. 10. The respondents have further relied on a communication which they have issued on 23- 12-85. Therefore, the written test is said to have been cancelled. It is also stated that there were no vacancies in the years 1986-87, therefore, no appointment could be made on the basis of the advertisement notice dated 14-5-85. 10. The respondents have further relied on a communication which they have issued on 23- 12-85. The said communication says that the Government of India bad decided to make recruitment of officers, Field Supervisors and clearks in all Regional Rural Banks through the Banking Services Recruitment Board, no advertisement for recruitment of such staff would be issued w.e.f. 1-1-86. Indent for staff required during 1986-87 to be furnished in case of advertisement issued before 1-1-86. The process of recruitment was to be completed under the exitsting arrangement. However, minimum staff was to be recruited to meet only immediate requirement. In the said decision which is contained in the telegram. It is stated that the decision to make recruitment through the Banking Services Recruitment Board was to be followed hereafter that would mean after 26-12-85. On the basis of the aforesaid communication learned counsel for the respondents has stated that there was a change in the policy of the recruitment and the recruitment was to be made by the Banking Services Recruitment Board. Therefore, the petitioners' right of consideration based on 1985 advertisement notice and the written test held on 6-4-86 would not survive. This argument has a inherent lacunae which is needed to be brought out more specifically. 11. The guidelines for selection of the staff of the Regional Rural Banks make it abondently clear that process of selection had to be made through the Banking Services Recruitment Board after 26-12-85. That would mean, if any process of selection is initiated after 26-12-85 then a different agency, than the once which had initiated the process of selection in 1985, was responsible for making the appointment for the Regional Rural Banks. The said guidelines expressly say that the process of recruitment which was intiated in pursuance of any advertisement issued before 1-1-86, that process of recruitment was to be completed under the existing arrangement which would mean under the arrangement which was then prevelent in the Banks. The respondents on the basis of these guidelines are trying to defeat the right of the petitioners. The respondents on the basis of these guidelines are trying to defeat the right of the petitioners. By reading these guidelines as a whole in letter and spirit every person with a judicial temper will be convinced that process of selection initiated before 1-1-86 was to be completed and taken to logical conclusion under the Rules and the arrangement which were then in existence. However, after 1-1-86 the Banking Services Recruitment Board was authorised to make recruitment for the banking staff. The process of recruitment which had already started would not be defeated or discontinued by authorising the Banking Services Recruitment Board to make recruitment with regard to banking staff. 12. Admittedly in the present writ petitions process of selection had commenced with the issuance of advertisement notice dated 14-5-85. The petitioners had completed the formalities for appearing in the examination in 1985 itself on the basis of the advertisement notice dated 14-5-85, their written test was conducted and result declared, thereafter, they had to appear in the interview for which no date was notified by the respondents. Therefore, the written test conducted on the basis of the advertisement notice dated 14-5-85 cannot be annuled because process of selection was entrusted to the Banking Services Recruitment Board after 1-1-86. The guidelines had expressly saved the previous process of selection. Therefore, by the change of recruitment body, effect of written test would not be diluted, nor would written test become obsolve or invalid as contended by the respondents. The notice dated 29-1-88 is not valid in so far as it cancels the written test conducted on 6-4-86 in pursuance of the advertisement notice dated 14-5-85. The reasons advanced in the notice are absolutely extraneous and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government of India contained in telegram dated 26-12-85 which is annexed to the writ petition no. 2807 of 1989. The written test had been cancelled on a non-est ground and for a reason which is absolutely alien to the controversy. 13. It is also incorrect that there were no vacancies in the years 1985-86 with regard to the probationary officers. When the advertisement dated 14-5-85 was issued, the requirement of the Bank was given and on the basis of that requirement number of probationary Officers were also earmarked who were to be recruited. 13. It is also incorrect that there were no vacancies in the years 1985-86 with regard to the probationary officers. When the advertisement dated 14-5-85 was issued, the requirement of the Bank was given and on the basis of that requirement number of probationary Officers were also earmarked who were to be recruited. 50 per cent vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruitment and 50 per cent by Field Staff. The Field Supervisors would be eligible for promotion to the posts of the Probationary Officers if they had five years' experience as Field Supervisor. The Rural Bank was established in 1983, is not in dispute. Therefore in 1985 or 1986 or 1987 no body from the Field Supervisors was eligible for promotion on the basis of the selection Roll furnished by the respondents. For promotion, a Field Supervisor had to be a Graduate of a recognised University and he must had five years' experience as Field Supervisor. By simple arithmetical calculation the person appointed in 1983 as Field Supervisor in Rural Bank would not have gained five years' experience in the years 1985, 1986 or 1987. Such experience can be gained by a Field Supervisor appointed in 1983, in the year 1988 if they are in continuous service as a Field Supervisor in the Rural Bank. Consequently, it is natural that the Probationary officers were to be recruited from the open market and not from ineligible candidate who had not acquired a minimum qualification of five years' experience. 14. From the reading of the rejoinder-affidavit and supplementary affidavit as also the counter-affidavit, it appears that posts of Probationary Officers were available in 1986-87. In 1985 also the posts were available but since the result of the examination was declared on 30-5-86, therefore, in 1985 no Probationary Officer could be recruited directly. The vacancies which had occured in 1985 did not lapse in 1986 and 1987 in respect of the posts of Probationary Officers in the Bank. The petitioners had waited for about two years for being called for interview for which they had qualified, but they were told that the written test has been cancelled and the right acrrued to them has been taken away by a stroke of pen and in a manner which cannot be said to be valid or in confirmity with the Rules. 15. 15. The petitioners' right to appear at the interview was not affected by any change which has taken place subsequently in respect of the recruitment policy of the Bank. Even if the selection Board had been empowered to make recruitment they could call the petitioners for interview on the basis of the result of the written test conducted on 6-4-86. The petitioners could not refuse to appear before the Board on the ground that the Board was not in existence when the first advertisement notice dated 14-5-85 was issued because petitioners' appearance before the Board for interview would not in any manner affect the right of their determent. The guidelines had saved the selection process which was initiated before 1-1-86. Then fore, the Board could be competent to call the petitioners for interview on the basis of the selection process which had commenced on 14-5-85 instead of that the respondents at their sweet will and in arbitrary manner has tried to destroyed the right of the petitioners which had accrued to them in the written test by cancelling the result of the written test. Therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be set to be justified in any manner. 16. The petitioners have relied on authority of the Supreme Court in P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 405 to show that commencement of process of selection is not affected by prospective amendment of Rules. The amended Rules which is prospective will not have the effect of invalidating selection already held. In the present case also the guidelines issued on 26-12-85 with regard to the powers of the Banking Services Recruitment Board is prospective and any thing done before 1-1-86 with regard to the process of recruitment is expressly saved by the guideline. Therefore, the written examination of the petitioners which was held in pursuance of advertisement notice dated 14-5-85 cannot be cancelled or set aside, merely because in future some other authority is entrusted with the process of recruitment. That being so the petitioners' right to be called for interview is not taken away and they are entitled to be interviewed and considered for appointment as Probationary Officers against the available vacancies with the respondent Bank for the post of Probationary Officers. 17. That being so the petitioners' right to be called for interview is not taken away and they are entitled to be interviewed and considered for appointment as Probationary Officers against the available vacancies with the respondent Bank for the post of Probationary Officers. 17. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to hold that the action taken by the respondents on 29-1-88 for cancellation of the examination held on 6-4-86 for the posts of Probationary Officer is invalid illegal and unconstitutional as it affects the fundamental right of the petitioners who are denied an opportunity of being considered. As they have passed the written examination and qualified for being called for interview, they cannot be denied the right to be called for interview merely the process of selection had changed or the Bank had not expanded as desired by the respondents. 18. I am also inclined to hold that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for the posts of Probationary Officers if they qualify in the interview also and are found eligible for consideration on the basis of their merit. The written test already held on 6-4-86 and the interview that may be held now. The result is that the writ petitions are allowed : (a) By a writ of certiorari, it is declared that the cancellation of the written examination held on 6-4-86 in pursuance of the advertisement notice dated 14-5-85 in respect of the posts of Probationary Officer is hereby quashed. (b) By a writ of mandamus it is directed that the petitioners shall be interviewed by respondents No. 4 on the basis of the qualification which they have acquired in the written test held on 6-4-86 which was held in pursuance of the advertisement notice dated 14-5-85. (c) If the petitioners are found eligible on the basis of the merit so determined on the basis of written test already held and on the basis of the interview which shall be held now, they shall be considered for appointment against the available vacancies of Probationary Officers in the Regional Rural Banks of the respondents. (c) If the petitioners are found eligible on the basis of the merit so determined on the basis of written test already held and on the basis of the interview which shall be held now, they shall be considered for appointment against the available vacancies of Probationary Officers in the Regional Rural Banks of the respondents. (d) That the respondent No. 4 is directed to conduct the interview within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him and thereafter, prepared a selection list of the petitioners on the basis of the merit obtained by the petitioners in the written test already- held and in the interview. (e) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed by a writ of mandamus to consider the petitioners for being appointed against the posts of Probationary Officers in the Regional Rural Banks (Vidur Gramin Bank) if their eligibility is determined for such consideration by respondent No. 4. 19. The petitioner in writ petition No. 2807 of 1989 shall be entitled to receive Rs. 500/- as costs from respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 20. The writ petitioners in writ Petition No. 18941 of 1988 shall also be entitled to receive costs from respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 which I quantify at Rs. 1000/-. The writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4005 of 1988 shall also be entitled to receive costs from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which I quantity at Rs. 500/-. Petitions allowed.