Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26th October, 1991 issued by the Deputy Director, navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional office Lucknow (respondent No.3 ). 2. The case of the petitioner as made out in the writ petition is that he was working as a Lecturer in Baghmara College, Baghmara (Dhanbad ). The petitioner was an M. A. B. Ed. and in response to an advertisement published in the news paper. The applied for appointment as Assistant teacher in Navodaya Vidyalaya Ranti, madhubani. Thereafter pursuant to an interview the petitioner was selected for appointment and an appointment letter, dated 10th November, 1987 was issued appointing the petitioner to the post of Teacher in Navodaya Vidyalaya samiti. The terms and conditions of the said appointment will appear from annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner was initially appointed on deputation for a period or two years. One of the terms and conditions of the said appointment was that the appointment will be on transfer on deputation initially for a period of two years with a possibility of permanent absorption. The terms and conditions of the said appointment are set out below: 2. The terms and conditions of the appointment will be as follows:- (i) The appointment will be on transfer on deputation initially for a period of 2 years with a possibility of permanent absorption. (ii) The appointment will be subject to the conditions that this lien will be kept for a period of 2 years on the post held by him presently in your organisation and the will be taken back on or before the expiry of the normal deputation period of 2 years. (iii) The Samiti reserves the right of accepting or rejection retention of his service on permanent basis after or before the expiry of the deputation period. (iv) Pay while on deputation will be governed in accordance with the instruction contained in the Ministry of Finance O. M. No.10 (24)-E. III/60 dated 4th May, 1961 as amended from time to time. (v) He will have the option for draw his grade pay plus deputation duty allowance in accordance with the prevailing rules or to have the pay fixed in the scale of pay of the post subject to the instructions/ restrictions mentioned in the Department of Personnel and training O. M. No.6/30/86-Estt. (Pay. (v) He will have the option for draw his grade pay plus deputation duty allowance in accordance with the prevailing rules or to have the pay fixed in the scale of pay of the post subject to the instructions/ restrictions mentioned in the Department of Personnel and training O. M. No.6/30/86-Estt. (Pay. II) dated the 9th December, 1985 and Department of personnel and Administrative Reforms O. M. No.1/4/84-Estt. (Pay II) dated the 26th december, 1984. (vi) Other conditions of service will be governed by relevant rules and orders in force in the Samiti from time to time. (vii) Though the present posting will be as under but subject to exigencies of work he will liable to be posted any where in India during the period of deputation: Name of the Vidyalaya District State navodaya Vidyalaya, Ranti madhubani, Bihar. However, in the terms and conditions the terms of Deputation was also given and one of the said terms of deputation, namely, Clause 15 set out below : "the Officer will not be absorbed permanently by the Samiti before the expiry of the period for which his lien has been retained in the parent office and it would be binding on the Samiti to consult the parent office before issuing orders for his final absorption and in no such case orders will be issued till the Officers resignation has been accepted by the Lending department. These orders would take effect from the date of acceptance of his/her resignation. " 3. On being so appointed the petitioner was relieved from the post of Lecturer from Baghmara College on 24th November, 1987 and joined the post of Assistant teacher in Navodaya vidyalaya Samiti Service, Madhubani on 30th November, 1987. The petitioner was granted two years lien from Baghmara College. Thereafter the petitioner was asked to exercise option and pursuant to which the petitioner exercised his option and stated that he is willing to serve the navodaya Vidyalaya. The said option was given to the Principal of the said school and the Principal in his turn sent the said option of the petitioner to respondent No.3 on 28th July, 1989. Thereafter respondent No.3 unilaterally issued a letter addressed to the Principal, Baghmara College for the extension of the lien of the petitioner for a further period of one year with effect from 30th November, 1989. Thereafter respondent No.3 unilaterally issued a letter addressed to the Principal, Baghmara College for the extension of the lien of the petitioner for a further period of one year with effect from 30th November, 1989. Again on 18th November, 1989 respondent Nos.2 and 3 unilaterally extended the deputation period of the petitioner upto 30th April, 1990. Then again on 28th April, 1990 unilaterally respondent No.3 issued another communication addressed to the principal of Baghmara College, baghmara, Dhanbad extending the deputation period of the petitioner for one year with effect from 1st May, 1990. In the meantime, the petitioner was informed on 4th November, 1989 by the Secretary of Baghmara College that the extension of the lien of the petitioner was no longer possible. As such the petitioner had to make an application on 18th December, 1990 to respondent No.3 for his permanent absorption in the Samiti School as his lien in his College stood terminated. The petitioner also stated that the assistant Director (Academic)Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, New Delhi inspected the petitioners school on 24th November, 1990 and during inspection he highly recommended about the petitioners performance as a teacher. The said appreciation of the services of the petitioner is duly recorded in the Lesson Plan Book kept in the school. It is also the petitioners case that the Assistant Director, navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Lucknow region held camp in the School and he also highly appreciated the petitioners performance as a teacher in the said School and the petitioner was given additional period of two ashram Navodaya Vidyalaya, madhubani. The petitioner has also stated in paragraph 24 of the writ petition that his students did well in the subject which the petitioner was teaching in the first Central Board of secondary Education examination held in the month of March, 1991 the result of which was published. The petitioner also asserted that the Principal of the school all the time highly recommended for the absorption of the petitioner and on 19th January, 1991 the Principal of the School wrote to respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the absorption of the petitioner and others in Navodaya Vidyalaya Service. A copy of the said recommendation has been made Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Thereafter on 17th July, 1991 respondent No.3 issued on order repatriating the petitioner and against the said order the petitioner filed a writ petition being C. W. J. C. No.5515 of 1991. A copy of the said recommendation has been made Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Thereafter on 17th July, 1991 respondent No.3 issued on order repatriating the petitioner and against the said order the petitioner filed a writ petition being C. W. J. C. No.5515 of 1991. The same was disposed of by an order dated 20th August, 1991. By the said order dated 20th August, 1991 the learned Judges of the Division bench were pleased to quash annexure-8 (order dated 17th July, 1991) and directed the respondents authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner which was directed to be filed within fifteen days claiming his case for permanent absorption of his service in the Samiti. It was further directed that if the said representation is filed, then the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law and by a reasoned order within two months from the date of filing of such representation. Pursuant thereto the petitioner filed a detailed representation which is disclosed at annexure-12 and on the basis of the said representation, respondent No.3 passed an order rejecting the petitioners prayer for permanent absorption and stating that the permanent absorption of the petitioner is not possible in the said Samiti as "a committee constituted for the purpose of deciding absorption/repatriation of teachers working on deputation basis recommended his repatriation due to less percentage i. e.43 per cent. in graduation. Copy of the said communication is annexed and marked as Annexure-13. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents authorities has sought to uphold the impugned order by stating that since the petitioner did not satisfy the requisite requirement of absorption, his case could not be considered for permanent absorption. Learned counsel for the respondents also drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-6 at page 30 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that the Samiti is in the process of finalisation of its permanent absorption rules and on its finalisation, the cases for permanent absorption of all the deputatiqnists including that of the petitioner will be considered on its merit. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents authorities, no allegation has been made against the petitioners performance as a teacher during the period he worked in the said Samiti. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents authorities, no allegation has been made against the petitioners performance as a teacher during the period he worked in the said Samiti. In paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit it has been stated by the respondents that the absorption and repatriation are made according to rules and criteria fixed for absorption and the petitioner could not be absorbed as he did not fall under the criteria and rules prescribed for this purpose. It has been stated that 50 per cent mark in the graduation level is required under the relevant rules. 6. Pursuant to the direction of the court, Learned counsel for the respondents Samiti produced certain rules and directions. One of such directions was dated 26th April, 1991 and in the said direction dated 26th april, 1991 clause (v) has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. The said clause (v) is set out below:- "persons being considered for absorption should fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed at the time of their selection for the post. " 7. Thereafter the learned counsel also relied on the recruitment rules for teachers and has drawn the attention of this Court to the recruitment rules for the post of trained graduate teacher. In column 8 of the said rules relating to recruitment it has been stated that the essential qualification is bachelors degree from a recognised university and 50% marks or above in aggregate as well as in the concerned elective subjects. 8. It is an admitted case that from the marks sheet obtained by the petitioner at the graduate level, it is apparent that he has not got 50 per cent marks but he has got slightly above 43 per cent. 9. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that at the time when the petitioner was appointed in the year 1987, the recruitment rules were not in existence. The Recruitment Rules in question came into existence with effect from 7th June, 1991 and the recruitment rules do not have any retrospective operation. The petitioner was initially appointed for a period of two years on deputation. Therefore, the petitioners right to be considered for permanent absorption accrues on completion of two years from the date of his appointment which is 30th November, 1987. The petitioner was initially appointed for a period of two years on deputation. Therefore, the petitioners right to be considered for permanent absorption accrues on completion of two years from the date of his appointment which is 30th November, 1987. But instead of considering the petitioners case for permanent absorption, the respondents went on unilaterally extending the period of deputation. In the meantime the petitioners lien in respect of the college from where he came, stood terminated. The petitioner has, therefore, burnt his boats and has reached a point of no return and it is not possible for the petitioner to go back to his parent post in the College from where he had come. The petitioner is also the holder of a Post graduate degree. It is not in dispute that the petitioners services during the period in question has been appreciated by all concerned and the principal of the Vidyalaya Samiti in which the petitioner is working has repeatedly recommended his case for absorption. Taking all these facts into consideration it cannot be said that the petitioner has received a fair treatment at the hands of the respondents in the matter of consideration of his case for repatriation. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Mahendran and others V/s. State of Karnataka and others reported in A. I. R.1990 SC page 405. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment it has been stated that it is well-settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. It has been further stated that if a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective except in the matter of procedure. In the instant case the recruitment rule has been notified on 7th June, 1991 and as such apply prospectively. It has been further stated that if a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective except in the matter of procedure. In the instant case the recruitment rule has been notified on 7th June, 1991 and as such apply prospectively. Therefore, the condition of recruitment which has been fixed under the said rule in January, 1991 cannot govern the case of the petitioner, who was recruited in the year 1987 and on the basis of those conditions the petitioners prayer for permanent absorption cannot be rejected. 10. In another decision of the apex Court in the case of Bhagwati prasad V/s. Delhi State Mineral Development corporation reported in A. I. R.1990 S. C. page 371, it has been stated in paragraph 6 as follows:- "the main controversy centres round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the post so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1983 and 1986 and ever since, they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the persons to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny then the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. In our view, three years experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the respondents in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation. " 11. In this case here the petitioners case stands on much stronger footing inasmuch as he was not appointed as worker on daily basis with artificial breaks in service. The petitioner was appointed after a duly conducted selection process and was appointed on deputation basis for two years. " 11. In this case here the petitioners case stands on much stronger footing inasmuch as he was not appointed as worker on daily basis with artificial breaks in service. The petitioner was appointed after a duly conducted selection process and was appointed on deputation basis for two years. As such the experience which the petitioner has gathered during the last two years and the fact that he has discharged his duties which have earned the appreciation of all concerned must count for his permanent absorption. Denying the permanent absorption to the petitioner in the facts of this case is wholly an unfair and unreasonable action on the part of the respondents. As has been rightly said by me Supreme Court that the essence of guarantee epitomized under Articles 14 and 16 is fairness founded on reason. (See the Manager government Branch Press and another v. B. D. Balliappa reported in A. I. R.1979 S. C. page 429 at page 434, paragraph 24 ). In the instant case also the impugned order passed by the respondents refusing the permanent absorption of the petitioner is wholly unjust, unfair ana is not based on reason. This court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the recruitment rules cannot have a retrospective operation to deny the benefits of permanent absorption of the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ratilal B. Soni and others V/s. State of gujarat and others reported in A. I. R.1990 S. C. page 1132. In that case the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were of the view that the appellants being on deputation they could be reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post. The said decision was made in the particular fact situation of that case where the option was sought for from the appellants, in that case for being absorbed in the State cadre but it was found that no option was given by them at the relevant point of time and as they did not exercise option within the prescribed time, they were not absorbed in the State cadre. In that context the above observation was made. In that context the above observation was made. Here the petitioner duly exercised his option for his permanent absorption at the right point of time. Apart from that in this case the period of deputation of the petitioner was unilaterally extended by the respondents for about two years as a result of which the petitioners lien in college service stood terminated. As the lien of the petitioner stood terminated, the petitioner today has no place to go if he is not permanently absorbed. The petitioner has done his duty with sincerity and has earned the appreciation of all concerned. Thus in the facts of the present case to deny the benefit of permanent absorption to the petitioner on the basis of a recruitment rule brought about at a later time, as noted earlier, is both unjust and unfair. This Court cannot accept the stand of the respondents in the tacts and circumstances of the case. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ-petition is allowed. The impugned orders at annexure-13 dated 26th october, 1991 is quashed. the respondents authorities must consider the petitioners case for permanent absorption taking into consideration the various appreciations issued in his favour from time to time without taking into consideration the stipulations in the recruitment rules. Such consideration must be made by the respondents authorities favourably and within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment so that the petitioner may be permanently absorbed in the post of teacher where he was working, namely, Nayodaya vidyalaya, Ranti in the district of madhubani, Bihar. It is further made clear that if, as a result of such consideration, the petitioner is permanently absorbed, he will be paid his salary only from the date of his permanent absorption and will not be entitled for the salary for the period during this he did not work in the said vidyalaya. However, there will be no order as to costs.