Judgment B. N. Agrawal and S. K. Singh, JJ. 1. This writ application has been filed by the two petitioners for quashiog the order dated 21-9-1989 issued by additional Secretary, Bihar Public; Service Commission, contained in Annexure 7-A, by which it has returned the papers which had been sent to the bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission)for considering the case of promotion of the two petitioners and Lal Babu singh to the posts of Registrar in the Home Special Department on the ground that the Commission while considering the case of promotioa of oae aneshwarr Prasad Singh, by its letter dated 17-1-1989, contained in Annexure 7, had returned the file to the said department for promotion on the post of registrar intimating that the same will be considered after formation of a joint cadre of Section Officers in the various departments of Secretariat. The further prayer made on behalf the retitioners is to direct the respondent-Commission to hold meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the case of promotion of the petitioners to the posts of Registrar in the Home Special Department treating the cadre of Section Officers in the home Special Department of the Government of Bihar as a separate cadre. 2. The short facts for disposal of this application ate that prior to 30th august, 1988, every department ct the Government of Bihar had separate cadre. Undisputedly, the petitioners were appointed as assistants in the home Special Department and subsequently they were promoted in the cadre of Section Officers of the same very department. When certain vacancies had fallen in the next higher cadre of the Home Special Department, that is, cadre of Registrar, the petitioners along with others became entitled to be considered for promotion to the said post. The case of promotion was required to be considered by a Departmental Promotion Committee consisting ot four persons, its Chairman being either Chairman of the Bihar Public service Commission or one of its members duly nominated by tha Chairman.8-7-1988 was the date fixed by Committee for considering the cases of promotion of five persons including the petitioners on which day only three members were present, but neither Chairman of the Commission nor one of its members duly authorised was present. Therefore, three-men Committee considered the cases of promotion and found the two petitioners fit for promotion. Therefore, three-men Committee considered the cases of promotion and found the two petitioners fit for promotion. As such, the Committee by its resolution dated 8-7-1988 recommended the case of the petitioners for promotion. Since neither Chairman nor member of the commission was present in the meeting, the Deputy Secretary, Home Special department, wrote a letter on 14-7-1988 to Under Secretary of the Commisson requesting him to take steps for convening meeting of the Departmental promotion Committee and send concurrence of the Commission stating therein that three members of the Departmental Promotion Committee had duly considered the case of the petitioners and found therm fit for promotion in which meeting neither the Chairman of the Commission nor any member was present. Upon receipt of the aforsaid letter, the Secretary of the Commission by letter dated 8-8-1988 fixed 22-8-1988 as the date for holding of Departmental Promotion committee, but on 22-8-1988 the meeting could not be convened as three other members of the Committee who belonged to Government departments could not attend the same because of their certain pre-occupation. Before any adjourned date of meeting could be fixed, on 30-8-1988 the State government had taken a decision that all the cadres of ministerial officers of different departments of the State Government in the Secretariat shall be constituted in one joint cadre, meaning thereby that different posts of Section officers in different departments of the State Government in Secretariat shall be merged into one for the purpose of promotion to the higher post of Registrar. In view of this decision of the State Government, the Commission by its letter dated 17-1-1989 (Annexure 7) returned the file of one Aneshwar prasad Singh stating therein that the question of giving concurrence shall be considered after formation of joint cadre. Likewise, by letter dated 21-9-1989 (Annexure 7-A) the Commission returned the file relating to the petitioners for their promotion to the post of Registrar on the same very ground. Thereafter, on 30-11-1988, an Ordinance was promulgated, namely, The Assistants of the Sec retariat and Attached Offices Joint Cadre Ordinance, 1988 (Bihar ordinance No.19 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and the same has been followed by successive Ordinances. This Ordinance has come into force with effect from 30th August, 1988, that is, the date when the State government had already taken a decision for constitution of joint cadre. This Ordinance has come into force with effect from 30th August, 1988, that is, the date when the State government had already taken a decision for constitution of joint cadre. According to this ordinance a combined gradation list of all Section Officers working in different departments of Government of Bihar in Secretariat was required to be prepared and promotion to the higher post, that is the posts of Registrar was required to be made out of that combined gradation list. 3. The only question which arises in this writ application is as to whether the case of the petitioners has to be considered in accordance with the rules which were in existence prior to 30-8-1988 treating the cadre of Section officers of Home Special Department as a separate cadre or the same has to be considered in accordance with the Governments decision dated 30-8-1988 and provisions of the Ordinance, after preparing a joint cadre of all Section officers of different departments of Government of Bihar in the Secretariat. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the process of promotion had started on 8-7-1988, that is, before 30-8-1988. As such, the process has to completed in accordance with the rules which were in existence on 8-7-1988 and the same cannot be completed according to the Government decision dated 30-8-1988 and provisions of the Ordinance specially in view of the fact that Ordinance is not retrospective. The Ordinance was promulgated on 30-11-1988 with effect from 30-8-1988, the date when the State Governemt had taken a decision for constitution of a joint cadre. The provisions of the Ordinance will not operate during the period prior to 30-8-1988. 5. In this connection, learned counsel Has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in A. A. Gallon V/s. The Director of Education air 1983 Supreme Court 1143. In that case, process of selection had started according to the unamended statute in the year 1973. Before the selection process was completed on 18th August, 1975, an amendment was made in the statute which was prospective. According to the unamended statute, Director was competent authority to make appointment. In that case, process of selection had started according to the unamended statute in the year 1973. Before the selection process was completed on 18th August, 1975, an amendment was made in the statute which was prospective. According to the unamended statute, Director was competent authority to make appointment. By virtue of the amendment, power of appointment was taken away from Director inspite of the amendment on 8th March, 1977 Director passed order of appointment which was unsuccessfully challenged before Allahabad High court against which when an appeal was taken before apex Court the High courts decision was upheld. The Supreme Court was of the view that since the statute is not retrospective and amendment is not merely procedural and the same has not affected existing rights either expressly or by necessary implication, the process of selection which had already started prior to the amendment, has to be completed as if the amendment has not come into force process of selection, according to their Lordships, which had already been initiated prior to the amendment had to be completed in accordance with law which was in force prior to the amendment as if the amendment had not come into force. 6. We find that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. In the instant case also the promotion had already started prior to 30th August, 1988. Provisions of the Ordinance cannot be said to be procedural. Most of the provisions are substantive We do not find any word in the Ordinance which by necessary implication would affect process of promotion which had already started. By initiating process of promotion, some sort of right had accrued to the petitioners and those existing rights could have been taken away by Ordinance either expressly or by necessary implication by making it retrospective but no such provision has been made. Since the Ordinance is not retrospective, in our view neither the same nor Government decision dated 30th August, 1988 will affect the case of promotion of the petitioners to the cadre of Registrar in the Home special Department as the process of promotion had already started much before 30th August, 1988. Since the Ordinance is not retrospective, in our view neither the same nor Government decision dated 30th August, 1988 will affect the case of promotion of the petitioners to the cadre of Registrar in the Home special Department as the process of promotion had already started much before 30th August, 1988. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the respondent-Commission was not justified in refusing to consider the cases of petitioners for promotion to the post of Registrar in the Home Special department so long joint cadre of Section Officers of all departments of secretariat is not constituted. In our view, the Commission was obliged to convene meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for taking a final decision in the matter of promotion of the petitioners. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and the communication of the respondent-Commission contained in Annexure 7-A is quashed. Now the commission will convene a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the cases of the petitioners and similarly situated section Officers in the Home Special Department, Government of Bihar for promoting them to the posts of Registrar in the Home Special Department treating the cadre of Section Officers in the Home Special Department to be a separate cadre. After recommendation of the Departmental Promotion committee, the State Government in the Home Special Department shall take a final decision in the matter of promotion In the circumstances of the case, we direct that parties shall bear their own costs. Application allowed.