S. R. SINGH, J. Advertisement Nos. 7/87-88 and 1/92-93 issued respectively by the Public Service Commission U. P. and U. P. Subordinate Services Selection Board (In short the Selection Board) inviting application from eligible and qualified candidates for appointment to the posts of Asstt. Teacher (L. T. Grade) both mens Branch as well as womens Branch in Government Higher Secondary Schools and Colleges as well as selection made pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/92-93 are sought to be quashed by means of this writ petition at the instance of the petitioners, who were working on some of the posts covered by the impugned advertisements having been appointed as such on ad hoc basis in accordance with the Government order dated 15-7-1989 pending regular selecti between June 1990 and April 1991 for the subject of English. Similarly, ad hoc appointments were made throughout the State for other subjects. It may, however, be quipped that the appointments were made for specified duration/period ending with the academic sessions in which the appointments were made, but ad hoc appointees were allowed continuity in span in pursuance of the decision of this Court in Smt. Manjuwati v. Slate of U. P. and others (1991) 2 UPLBEC 980, wherein it was held that the ad hoc appointees were to continue till selected candidates were made available to supplant them. 3. The post of Asstt. Teacher (L. T. grade) in Government Higher Secondary Schools and Colleges is categorised Group c post in the service known as u. P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service, recruitment to which was governed by the U. P. Subordinate Educa tional (Graduates grade) Service Rules 1983 (in short the rules ). The Regional Dy. Director of Education, in case of mens branch, and Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools in respect of womens branch, are the appointing authorities. The Regional Dy. Director of Education, in case of mens branch, and Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools in respect of womens branch, are the appointing authorities. Recruitment to the post was initially within the purview of the Public Service Commission, U. P. and according to the procedure laid down under rules 14 and 15 of the Rules, as they stood prior to their amendment by the U. P. Subordinate Education (Trained Graduates grade) Service (1st Amendment) Rules, 1992, the Director of Education were to determine and intimate to the Commission the number of vacancies to be filled in during the course of the year as also the number of vacancies to be earmarked for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes and other categories under rule 6 after obtaining the necessary details from the appoint ing authorities and, after inviting applications and making selection the Com mission were to prepare the select list and forward the same to the Director of Education U. P. for appointment. 4. Rule 14 of the Rules as amended by means of the U. P. Subordinate Education (. Trained Graduates grade) Service (1st Amendment) Rules, 1992, invests the Regional Deputy Director of Education of the concerned Region, to determine the number of vacancies of mens and womens branch both, to be filled during the course of the year by direct recruitment as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other categories under rule 6 and according to the amended. rule 15, the direct recruitment is required to be made on the basis of the selection made in the manner prescribed by the Rules, by a Selector Committee, consisting of the Appointing Authority the Regional Dy. Director of Education, of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and the Regional Asstt. Director of Education (Basic ). 5. The advertisement No. 7/87-88 was issued by the Public Service Commission, U. P. in accordance with the Rules as they stood at the relevant time. Director of Education, of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and the Regional Asstt. Director of Education (Basic ). 5. The advertisement No. 7/87-88 was issued by the Public Service Commission, U. P. in accordance with the Rules as they stood at the relevant time. Later on, the post in relation to direct recruitment, was specified as one of the Group c post enumerated in the Schedule to the U. P. Subordinate Services Selection Board Act, 1988 (in short the act), vide notification, dated 25th November 1989 issued by the Governor in exercise of the powers under sub-section (l)of Section 2 of the Act and thus, it came within the purview of the selection Board established under the Act. However, paragraph 2 of the notification aforesaid clearly postulated that the notification would not apply to the vacancies already referred to the U. P. Lok Sava Ayog before the issuance of the notification and further that the appointment to such vacancies would be made on the recommendations of the Lok Seva Ayog. 6. The validity of the advertisement No. 7/87-88 issued by the Public Service Commission U. P. has not been seriously challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, The recruitment to the post as stated supra, was within the purview of the Public Service Commission U. P. and it was exercised out of its purview in relation to direct recruitment for the first time by means of the notification dated 25-11-1989, but paragraph 2 of the said notification clearly and unequivocally provided that the vacancies already referred to U. P. Lok Seva Ayog before the issue of the notification, would remain unaffected and the appointment to such vacancies would be made on the recommendations of the Lok Seva Ayog unless, of course, the vacancies already intimated to the Commission are withdrawn by the appropriate authority. This position, in my opinion, remains unaltered even after the notification dated 15-2-1993 issued in exercise of the powers under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. As such, no exception can be taken to the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission, U. P. and the Commission have the jurisdiction to go ahead with the process of selection commenced with the advertisement notification No. 7/87-88. 7. As such, no exception can be taken to the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission, U. P. and the Commission have the jurisdiction to go ahead with the process of selection commenced with the advertisement notification No. 7/87-88. 7. As regards the advertisement No. 1/92-93 issued by the U. P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, it was urged for the petitioners that unlike the notification dated 25th November, 1992, there is nothing in the notification dated February 15, 1993 to save the vacancies already notified to the Service Selection Board. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that with the issuance of the notification dated 15-2-1993, the Selection Board ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with the process of selection which is now to be made by the Selection Committee in view of the amended rule 15 of the Rules. The submission, in my opinion, is unable. Mere withdrawal of the post from the purview of the Selection Board would not affect the jurisdiction of the Selection Board to go ahead with the process of selection commenced pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/92-93 in relation to vacancies already notified. 8. The rules made by the notification dated 6th November 1992 were published in U. P. Gazette Part I (ka) dated 28th August, 1993. Though the notification provides that the rules shall come into force at once, but in view of Section 4 (29-A) of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904, the Rules would be deemed to have come into force on the date of their publication in Gazette and words shall come into force at once have to be construed accordingly. In any case oven it be held that the Rules came into force on 6- 11-1992, that by itself would not be sufficient to divest the Selection Board of its jurisdiction to go ahead with the process of selection commenced with the advertisement No. 1/92-93 issued in the month of May 1992 pursuant to the requisition sent by the Director of Education under rule 14 vide letter dated 9-4-1992. The amendment in the Rules was of no significant moment in view of overriding effect of Section 29 of the Act so long as the post remained within the purview of the Selection Board and also so long as vacancies already notified to the selection board are not withdrawn. The amendment in the Rules was of no significant moment in view of overriding effect of Section 29 of the Act so long as the post remained within the purview of the Selection Board and also so long as vacancies already notified to the selection board are not withdrawn. It may be observed that it was by means of the notification No. 4030/ka-3-92-13-59-90-TC Karmik Anubhag-3, dated 15-2-1993, issued in exercise of the powers under Section 2 (2) of the Act, that the post was withdrawn from the purview of the U. P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, but the vacancies already notified were not at all withdrawn, and therefore even the notification dated 15-2-1993 is of no significant consequence vis- a-vis the posts notified to the Selection Board by the Director of Education vide letter dated 9-4-1992 for mere withdrawal of the post of Asstt. Teacher (L. T. Grade) from the purview of Selection Board vide notification dated 15-2-1993 does not have the effect of automatic abrogation and/or withdrawal of the requisition already sent to the Board under rule 14 of the Rules vide letter dated 9-4-1992 and the notification dated 15-2-1993 does not divest toe Board of its jurisdiction to proceed with the selection pursuant to the advertisement already made before the withdrawal of the post from the purview of the Board. The noti fication dated 15-2-1993, it may be stated, has been issued in exercise of the powers under Section 2 (v.) of the Act, whereas requisition was sent to the Board by the Director of Education under rule IS of the Rules. Nothing was elicited to the notice of the court to demonstrate that the said requisition has ever been withdrawn by the Director. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in /. J. Divakar and others v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and another AIR 1982 SC 15^5. Nothing was elicited to the notice of the court to demonstrate that the said requisition has ever been withdrawn by the Director. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in /. J. Divakar and others v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and another AIR 1982 SC 15^5. In that case while the Andhra Pradesh P. S. C. was in the process of finalising the select-list for recruitment to the posts of Junior Engineer alter conclusion of the viva voce test, the Gov ernment excluded from the purview of the Commission all appointments by direct recruitment to any posts in any category at all levels in the State and Subordinate Services and which were continuing temporarily on August 9, 1979 regarding any of the matters mentioned in Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India and regularised the direct recruits so holding the pests temporarily for a long number of years. The validity of the Govern ment Order withdrawing the posts from the purview of the Commission to the extent held by direct recruits for a long number of years and that of the Government Order regularising the service of temporary appointees was under challenge at the instance of the candidates who had applied for the posts of Junior Engineer. The Supreme Court held that "inviting the applications for a post does not by itself create any right to the post in the candidate who in response to the advertisement makes an application" and, accordingly, maintained the Government Order aforesaid. The question herein is not whether the selected candidates have acquired any right to the posts merely on the strength of selection rather it is whether the Board could have made the selection and recommended the candidates after 15-2-1993. The decision relied on, has no application to the facts ol the present case, for it is not the case of the petitioners that the vacancies notified to the Selection Board vide letter dated 9-4-1992 were withdrawn by the Director of Education. 10. The next case relied upon for the petitioners is Sia Ram v. State of U. P. and others, 1982 UPLBEC 324. 10. The next case relied upon for the petitioners is Sia Ram v. State of U. P. and others, 1982 UPLBEC 324. The Division Bench in that case, while considering the question, whether Section 16 of the U. P. Secondary Educa tion Services Commission and Selection Boards Ordinance, 1981 would operate only with regard to vacancies and appointments to be made in future and not with respect of which the proceedings had already been stated, held as under ; ". . . . . . . . . . It is no doubt a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. In the present case, the Legislature has simply amended the procedure in accordance with which the appointments of teachers and Heads have to be made. The rule against retrospective cons truction is not applicable to statute merely because "apart of the requisites for its action is drawn from time antecedent to its passing. " The observations aforestated were made by the Division Bench in the context of Section 16 of the Ordinance, which expressly provided that no appointment would be made except in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and further that any appointment made in contravention to sub-section (1) shall be void, Appointment in the manner laid down in U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations made thereunder was expressly forbidden by Section 16 read with Section 31 of the Act. The said decision, in my opinion, has no application to the fact of the present case. 11. P. K. Jaiswal v. Devi Mukherjee, AIR 1992 SC 749 too does not lend any assistance to the petitioner, for in that case, before the vacancies could be advertised by the Commission pursuant to requisitions sent to it, the Government informed the Commission not to proceed with the process of selection because the Government was, on a given point of time, consi dering the question of amending the recruitment Rules with a view to provid ing for promotion to the posts in question. Jatindra Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1984 SC 1850 , also is not attracted for application to the facts of the present case. Jatindra Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1984 SC 1850 , also is not attracted for application to the facts of the present case. In Parsidhan Singh v. Goya Prasad, 1957 ALJ 628, and Hukum Chand Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1988 Cr LJ 1587, the Courts addressed themselves to the effect of amendments changing forum of suit/appeal. These decisions, in my opinion, have no bearing to the facts of the present case. 12. On the other hand, A. A. Calton v. Director of Education, AIR 1983 SC 1143 , reliance on which was vehemently placed by Sri Pushpeadra Singh, Standing Counsel, shores up the view that I am persuaded to take. In that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court were traversing upon the effect of U. P. Act 26 of 1975, which took away the power of the Director of Education to make appointment under Section 16-F (a) of the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act in the case of minority Institutions. The Supreme Court held as under : ". . . . . . The Amending Act did not, however, provide expressly that the amendment in question would apply to pending proceedings under Section 16-F of the Act. Nor do we find any words in it which by necessary intendment would effect such pending pro ceedings. The process of selection under Section 16-F of the Act commencing from the stage of calling for applications for a post upto the date on which the Director becomes entitled to make a selection under Section 16-F (4) (as it stood then) is an integra ted one. At every stage in that process certain rights are created in favour of one or the other of the candidates. Section 16-F of the Act cannot, therefore, be construed as merely a pro cedural provisions. It is true that the Legislature may pass laws with retrospective effect subject to the recognised constitution limitations. But it is equally well settled that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing right, unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retrospective effect. . . . . . " (Emphasis supplied) 13. But it is equally well settled that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing right, unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retrospective effect. . . . . . " (Emphasis supplied) 13. In N. T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka PSC and others, 1990 (3) SCC 157 , the Supreme Caurt, after noticing A. A. Calton (supra), has expounded the following propositions of law : ". . . . . . It is well accepted principle of construction that a statutory rule or Government order is prospective in nature unless it is expressly of by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Where proceedings an initiated for selection by issuing advertisement, the selection should normally regulated by the then existing rules and Government orders and any amendment of the rules or the Government order pending the selection should not affect the validity of the selection made by the selecting authority or the Public Service Commission unless the amended Rules or the amended Government Orders, issued in exercise of its statutory power either by express provision or by necessary intendment indicate that amended Rules shall be applicable to the pending selections. " 14. In the face of the above authorities, I find the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel loaded with substance that selection pro ceedings pending before the Selection Board on the date of enforcement of the amended Rules, are not affected either by the amending rules or by the noti fication whereby the post of Assistant Teachers (L. T. Grade) was withdrawn from the purview of the Selection Board. 15. It was next argued for the petitioners that they are entitled to be regularised. I find no substance in the submissions. The petitioners were admittedly appointed on ad hoc basis for specified duration. Their appoint ments automatically came to an end by efflux of time, but they were allowed to continue, unless replaced by selected candidates, in view of the decision of this Court in Manju Wati (supra ). No statutory rule or order was brought to the notice of the Court providing for regularigation of ad hoc teachers appointed pursuant to and subject to the conditions stipulated in Government Order dated 15- 7-1989. No statutory rule or order was brought to the notice of the Court providing for regularigation of ad hoc teachers appointed pursuant to and subject to the conditions stipulated in Government Order dated 15- 7-1989. Rule 10 of the U. P. Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments (On Posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979, as inserted by Second Amendment Rules, 1989, have no bearing in that the petitioners were appointed subsequent to 1-9-1986. The argument that the cut-off date is arbitrary cannot be accepted. Service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the G. O, under which they were appointed read with direction issued by the Court in the case of Manju Wati, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 980. 16. Having accepted the ad hoc appointments on conditions stipulated in the Government order dated 15-7-1989 and having continued in service after expiration of the stipulated period of appointment in terms of the decision of this Court in Manju Watts case 1991 (2) UPLBEC 980, the peti tioners are not entitled to claim regularisation as a matter of right in the absence of any statutory rule or executive orders providing for regularisation in consonance with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, The plea of regularisation raised on behalf of the petitioners is therefore untenable. It may be worthy of mention that some of the petitioners admit tedly applied for selection pursuant to the impugned advertisement issued by the Selection Board, but they could not pass muster. No other points were pressed into service for the petitioners. 17. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed. .