ORDER In both the writ applications, petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent District Magistrate, Katihar, to appoint them against the posts of Village Level Worker/Village Extension Worker in the district of Katihar. As in both the applications reliefs sought for on behalf of the petitioners, parties are common, with consent of the parties, they are being disposed of by this order at the stage of admission itself 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow Compass. 3. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 23rd of May, 1987, issued by the District, Magistrate, Katihar, for appointment against, the posts of Village Level Worker/Village Extension Worker, petitioners applied. Thereafter, on completion of due process of selection as per the rules and relevant instructions of the Govt. prevailing at that time, a merit list was prepared, which was ultimately approved by the Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar. Out of fifty posts, which were advertised, only 43 names were approved. Thereafter, 30 candidates were appointed and the cases of 13 candidates including the petitioners, were kept pending by the District Magistrate, awaiting instruction from the Secretary Department of Agriculture. 4. Petitioners thereafter, approached the appropriate authorities with respect to their grievances and ultimately, on 18.7.19911 the Director, Agriculture Department, sought for a clarification from the District Magistrate as to under what circumstance appointment letters to remaining 13 candidates were not issued. Petitioners ultimately, learnt from the office of the District Magistrate that in view of the changed Policy of the Government, the District Magistrate found himself handicapped in making appointments of the petitioners. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, saying that in view of the Government after dated 21.11.1990, by virtue of which the reservation policy was changed, he had no option hut to appoint only 30 persons in total out of 43 candidates. A copy of such policy decision is Annexure-A to the Counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel then contended that the petitioners' vested right for consideration of their appointments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and rules, as they exist on the day of such advertisement, can not be taken away retrospectively through an executive instruction, as contained in resolution dated 21.11.1990 (Annexure-A). 7. 6. Learned counsel then contended that the petitioners' vested right for consideration of their appointments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and rules, as they exist on the day of such advertisement, can not be taken away retrospectively through an executive instruction, as contained in resolution dated 21.11.1990 (Annexure-A). 7. A question, thus, emerges for consideration whether on the basis of the executive instruction, as contained in Annexure-A, and also in absence of any express provision or necessary intendment or the rule, giving it retrospective effect, the vested right of the petitioner, which accrued to them as per the terms and conditions in the advertisement and the rules and regulation's, prevailing at that time, can he taken away by a resolution of the government, as contained in Annexure-A. 8. As indicated above, facts of the case are not in dispute. The posts were advertised in the year, 1987. The process of selection commenced thereafter, and, the merit list was approved. On completion of the training, out of 43 candidates 30 candidates were appointed. Admittedly, there is no statutory rule, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, giving its retrospective effect, taking away the benefits of the candidates, available at the time of advertisement and due process of selection. Even in the resolution dated 21.11.1990 (Annexure-A) it has been specifically mentioned that it was applicable after 21.11.1990. In that view of the matter, we fail to appreciate how the respondents have made its operation ret respective in order to defeat the claim of the petitioners. Similar question have gone into consideration before the Supreme Court as well as before this Court on several occasions. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to notice some of the judgments. In the case of Harendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar &. Ors. 1991 (2) PLJR.573, it similar question arose for consideration. In that case also the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, issued a resolution altering earlier resolution, dated 10.11.78. It was provided that reserved category candidates, who are selected in the merit list, were not to be counted in the reserved category. It was urged that amended resolution was not applicable in the case of the petitioners and their appointments had to be made in terms of the advertisement. It was provided that reserved category candidates, who are selected in the merit list, were not to be counted in the reserved category. It was urged that amended resolution was not applicable in the case of the petitioners and their appointments had to be made in terms of the advertisement. The posts on which the petitioners were to he appointed were advertised in the year 1988, and the result of examination was published in September, 1990. Thereafter, the Secretary, acting without - jurisdiction and without any authority of law issued an order dated 31.10.1990, which was to take cited from 1.11.1990, By giving such retrospective effect, the vested right of the petitioners for their appointments was arbitrarily taken away. In view of the aforesaid situation their Lordships held as follows: "By giving such ret respective effect the vested right of the petitioners for being considered for their appointment was illegally and arbitrarily taken away. The process of selection/appointment having been initiated and completed as per the terms of the advertisement and the rules/regulation/resolutions then existing, the same could not he altered retrospectively by the Secretary himself. The petitioners were duty selected and were 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 effecting only from 1.11.1990. It was further pointed out that a number or candidates had given up their earlier appointment on account of their being declared successful and that it would not he property 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, they cannot he denied their appointment and many of them, in this long process, have now become overage for appointment on the Government service." In this context, it is also relevant to notice a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. T. Devin Katti and others vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and ors., (1990 3 S.C.C. 157: "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 he 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 ease must he 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 condition contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to he considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallizes on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If he recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must he 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 arc not retrospective in nature the selection must he 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 he any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidate 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 the terms contained in the advertisement, he docs 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." It would also he useful to order the case of P. Mahendran and firs. vs. State of Karnataka and ors., A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 405. vs. State of Karnataka and ors., A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 405. Their Lordships after following the ratio, laid down in the case of A. A. Calton vs. The Director of Education and Anr., A.I.R. 1983 S. C. 1143, has held as follows: "Thus, the selection and appointment of the appellant candidate could not be held as illegal as the process of section had commenced in 1983 which had to be completed in accordance with law as it stood at the commencement of the selection. The amended Rule could not be applied to invalidate the selection made by the Commission. It is true that a candidate does not get any right to the post by merely making an application for the same, hut a right is created in his favour for being considered for the post in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement a and the existing recruitment rules. If a candidate applies for a post in response to advertisement issued by Public Service Commission in accordance with recruitment Rules he acquires right to he considered for selection in accordance with the then existing Rules. This right can not be affected by amendment of any Rule unless the amending Rule is retrospective in nature. In the instant case the Commission had acted in accordance with the then existing rules and there is no dispute that the appellants were eligible for appointment, their selection was not in violation of the recruitment Rules, therefore, selling aside the select list prepared by the Commission would not he proper." 9. In the present case, we have already noticed that 30 candidates out of 43, who were sent for training, have already been appointed. According to the respondents, in view of the government resolution, remaining vacancies could not be filled up as the reservation policy was changed. It is true that a candidate does not get any right to the post by merely making an application for the same. But a right is certain accrued in his favour for being considered for the post in accordance with the terms' and conditions of the advertisement and the existing recruitment Rules. This right can not be affected by amendment of any rule, unless the amending rule is retrospective in nature. In the instant case, no such statutory rule has been brought to our notice. This right can not be affected by amendment of any rule, unless the amending rule is retrospective in nature. In the instant case, no such statutory rule has been brought to our notice. In fact, Annexure - A is an executive instruction which can not take away fundamental and legal right of any individual retrospectively. 10. In view of the discussions, made above, we allow these applications and direct the District Magistrate, Katihar, to make appointment against the posts in question on the basis of the merit list, prepared and finalised, ignoring the resolution of the government, issued vide Annexure- A dated 21.11.1990. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.