JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. This Writ petition was heard along with C.W.J.C. Nos. 4180 and 4504 of 1994. The question raised for consideration in this application being different, this petition is being disposed of by separate judgment. The judgment should be read as supplemental to the judgment in the other two writ petitions being disposed of today. 2. The petitioner appeared at the 38th Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment to the Bihar Administrative Service and other services and posts on May 24, 1992 in the Economically Backward Females category. She was declared successful vide result published on July 18/24, 1992. The result of the examination was challenged in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7203 of 1992 on different grounds. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on July 29, 1993 Judgment since reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 178 ). The main examination was held thereafter in September, 1993. The petitioner claims to have faired well in the examination. However, she was not declared successful in the result published on April 27, 1994. It is said that the reservation for candidates of the Economically Backward categories had been done away with in the light of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Amendment) Ordinance/Act, 1993 (in short, 'the Reservation Act/ Ordinance') which had been promulgated/enacted in the meantime. The present writ petition was filed on May 9, 1994 for direction, inter alia, to consider the case of the petitioner as a reserve candidate in the Economically Backward Women category. According to the petitioner, the reservation for the Economically Backward categories being available at the commencement of the selection process, duly notified in the advertisement dated January 20, 1992, benefit of reservation cannot be denied to the candidates who had applied in those categories in the midst of the selection process. 3. The facts stated hereinabove are not in dispute. According to the respondents, the aforesaid amendment in the Reservation Act made in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 Supreme Court 477) according to which reservation on the basis of economic criterion alone is not permissible. 3. The facts stated hereinabove are not in dispute. According to the respondents, the aforesaid amendment in the Reservation Act made in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 Supreme Court 477) according to which reservation on the basis of economic criterion alone is not permissible. It is contended that the impugned amendment having been given retrospective effect the existence of reservation as on the date of advertisement and commencement of the selection process is of no avail to the concerned candidates. 4. Within a rather short span of three years since 1991, there have been quite a number of Ordinances/Acts on the subject of Reservation in post and services in the State of Bihar. It would be appropriate to briefly notice the history of enactments. As per the objects and reasons stated in Bihar Ordinance No. 33 of 1991 (the first on the subject), prior to 1978 reservation in posts and services was provided to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes alone. On February 9, 1978 reservation in posts and services was made also in favour of the Extremely Backward, Backward, Economically Backward and Economically Backward Women Classes. This was done by an executive order. In order to give statutory footage to the reservation for the aforesaid sections of the Society, the said Ordinance i.e. Bihar Ordinance No. 33 of 1991 providing for reservation to them was promulgated on September 26, 1991. Another Ordinance, Bihar Ordinance No. 34 of 1991, was promulgated on October 7, 1991 introducing certain amendments in the Schedule. The aforesaid Ordinances were replaced by Bihar Act 3 of 1992 published in the Bihar Gazette on January 7, 1992. On February 17, 1993 Bihar Ordinance No. 9 of 1993 was promulgated introducing substantial amendments in the Act. It, inter alia, amended Section 4 of Bihar Act 3 of 1992, which is the substantive or charging section regarding reservation, by substituting a new sub-section (2) in place of the previous one. We shall notice the amendment soon herein-after. On April 27, 1993 another Ordinance being Bihar Ordinance No. 18 of 1993 was promulgated adding, inter alia, Clause (f) in sub-section (6) of section 4 of the Act giving retrospective effect to the provisions of Section 4. We shall notice the amendment soon herein-after. On April 27, 1993 another Ordinance being Bihar Ordinance No. 18 of 1993 was promulgated adding, inter alia, Clause (f) in sub-section (6) of section 4 of the Act giving retrospective effect to the provisions of Section 4. It is on the basis of this provision that the respondents profess to deny the benefit of reservation to the Economically Backward Class Candidates notwithstanding pendency of the selection process. I shall refer to this provision in detail at the appropriate place later in this judgment. To continue the chronology of legislation, the aforesaid two Ordinances were replaced by Bihar Act 11 of 1993 published in the Bihar Gazette on August 21, 1993. The Reservation Act was again amended by Bihar Act 7 of 1994 published on April 26, 1994. Yet another Ordinance, Bihar Ordinance No. 20 of 1994, was promulgated on August 31, 1994. We are, however, not concerned with the said two amending Act and Ordinance for the purpose of this case. 5. It is not in dispute that as per the law in regard to reservation in posts and services obtaining on the date of commencement of the selection process, candidates of the Economically Backward and Economically Backward Female categories were entitled to reservations up to certain extent. It is also not in dispute, in principle, that appointments have to be made as per the rules etc. applicable at the commencement of the selection process and not as per any amendment that might be made therein later during the pendency of the selection process. According to the respondents, however, the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of the reservation on account of exclusion of the Economically Backward Categories with restrospective effect. It is also their case that any reservation for them after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) would be illegal. 6. According to the respondents, however, the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of the reservation on account of exclusion of the Economically Backward Categories with restrospective effect. It is also their case that any reservation for them after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) would be illegal. 6. Section 4 of the Reservation Act prior to the amendment by Bihar Ordinance No. 9 of 1993/Bihar Act 11 of 1993, so far as relevant, read as follows: All appointments to services and posts in an establishment which are to be filled by direct recruitment shall be regulated in the following manner namely : (1) The available vacancies shall be filled up (a) from open merit category 50% (b) from reserved category 50% (2) The vacancies from different categories of reserved candidates from amongst the 50% reserved category shall, subject to other provisions of this Ordinance, be as follows : (a) Scheduled Castes 14% (b) Scheduled Tribes 10% (c) Extremely Backward Class 12% (d) Backward Class 8% (e) Economically Backward Women 3% (f) Economically Backward 3% Total 50% By reason of the aforesaid amendment vide Ordinance No. 9 of 1993/Act 11 of 1993, the categories known as "Economically Backward Women" and "Economically Backward" were deleted. Categories of reservation now are as follows : (a) Scheduled Castes 14% (b) Scheduled Tribes 10% (c) Extremely Backward Classes 14% (d) Backward Classes 10% (e) Women of Backward Classes 2% Total 50% 7. Clause (f) of Bihar Ordinance No. 18 of 1993 runs as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the Ordinance or in any other law or rules for the time being in force, or in any judgment or decree of the court the provisions of section 4 shall apply to such cases in which all formalities of selection have been completed before 28th April, 1993 but the appointment letters have not been issued," According to the respondents, by reason of the above clause (f), inserted in sub-section (6) of Section 4, the deletion of the aforesaid two categories has retrospective effect and the concerned candidates cannot claim the benefit of reservation. 8. 8. A plain reading of the provision would show that the provisions of Section 4 (including of the substantive provision of reservation) are to apply retrospectively to only such cases in which "all formalities of selection" were completed prior to April 28, 1993 but appointment letters have not been issued. In other words, in cases where the formalities of selection were not completed prior to the said date the provisions will not be applicable. It may be stated here that relevance of the cut-off date 28th April, 1993 obviously is that the said Ordinance (Bihar Ordinance No. 18 of 1993) was promulgated on April 27, 1993. As noticed above, the categories of reservation as mentioned in Section 4 (2) had been amended earlier by Bihar Ordinance No. 9 of 1993 on February 17, 1993. Prior to that section 4 (2) contained provisions regarding reservation for the Economically Backward and Economically Backward Women category. The amendment in Section 4 (2) made by Bihar Ordinance No. 9 of 1993, in absence of any provision giving it a retrospective effect, would have been applicable from the date of amendment i.e. February 17, 1993. Bihar Ordinance No. 18 of 1993 gave it retrospective effect but only in cases where all formalities of selection had been completed prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance. In cases where all formalities of selection had not been completed, the provision of Section 4 (as existing on that date after amendment) would not be applicable. It would, thus, follow that the candidates corning in the said two categories of reservation cannot be denied the benefit of reservation. 9. In the instant case, admittedly the selection process was not complete on April 28, 1993. As a matter of fact, the written (Main) examination itself was held later in September, 1993. The viva voce was held much thereafter in May, 1994. It is obvious in the circumstances that the provisions of Clause (f) of Section 4 (6) can have no application. If the said provision is not applicable, the right of the petitioner and other similarly situate persons of having their case considered in concerned categories of reservation cannot be denied to them. 10. In Y.V.R. Rangaiah & ors. It is obvious in the circumstances that the provisions of Clause (f) of Section 4 (6) can have no application. If the said provision is not applicable, the right of the petitioner and other similarly situate persons of having their case considered in concerned categories of reservation cannot be denied to them. 10. In Y.V.R. Rangaiah & ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao & ors., (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 852) a question arose as to whether appointment could be made out of the list of the approved candidates prepared by the appointing authority against the vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of the rules. The Supreme Court held that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by old Rules and not by the amended Rules. More recently, in P. Mahendran and others v. State of Karnataka and others (AIR 1990 Supreme Court 405) similar question was answered in the following terms: "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 be considered for selection in accordance with the then existing Rules. This right cannot be affected by amendment of any Rule unless the amending Rules are retrospective in nature." As the provision of Section 4 (6) (f) purporting to give retrospective effect to the substantive provision regarding reservation is not applicable to the instant case, the cases of the petitioner have to be considered as per the original unamended provisions of Section 4 (2). 11. In the result, this application is allowed. The Respondent-Bihar Public Service Commission is directed to treat the petitioner and other similarly situate candidates belonging either to Economically Backward or Economically Backward Women category as eligible for consideration in the respective category and consider their cases accordingly. Needless to say that direction in regard to fresh evaluation of the answer-books of the Main Examination issued in. the other Writ petitions (C.W.J.C. Nos. 4180 and 4504 of 1994) shall apply to them also. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. S.J. Mukhopadhya, J.-I agree.