Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. Both writ-petitions were heard analogously. The facts involved in both writ-petitions are almost identical and as such both writ-petitions are decided by this common judgment. 2. The prayer of the petitioners in both writ-petitions is for their appointment in the post of Demonstrator which now is redesignated as Lecturer. 3. The case of the petitioners in both the writ-petitions is that there was an advertisement in 1987 for appointment to the post of Demonstrator. The said advertisement was published on 18th November, 1987 in the local newspaper. Last date for filing of applications pursuant to the said advertisement was 1st January, 1988. 4. Pursuant to the said advertisement petitioners applied and thereafter a panel was prepared in the year 1989 and the case of the petitioner is that they were empancelled. The fact that the petitioners were empancelled is not disputed by the respondents. 5. There is dispute over the fact whether the panel was ever approved. In fact, the petitioners have not been able to make any categorical statement to the affect that the panel was actually approved. The petitioners have shown that the panel was placed before the different authorities, for approval. But in fact there is nothing on record to show that the panel was actually approved. 6. The grievances of the petitioners are that in the meantime appointments have been made to the post for which panel was prepared by appointing certain persons who were not empanelled. The petitioners alleged that in the matter of such appointments illegality has been committed by the respondents. The petitioners therefore prayed for their appointments illegality has been committed by the respondents. The petitioners therefore prayed for their appointment on the basis of empanelment in the panel. 7. In this matter the respondents have entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. The private respondents have also entered appearance and filed their counter-affidavit. The main contention of the respondents is that the petitioners are all Medical officers and they were continuing as such. None of the petitioners have post-graduate qualification. When the post of demonstrator has been redesignated as lecturer the minimum required qualification for filing up such posts of lecturer is the post-graduate qualification. As the petitioners do not have the said qualification they cannot be posted to the post of lecturer. None of the petitioners have post-graduate qualification. When the post of demonstrator has been redesignated as lecturer the minimum required qualification for filing up such posts of lecturer is the post-graduate qualification. As the petitioners do not have the said qualification they cannot be posted to the post of lecturer. The other contention raised by the respondents is that not a single appointment has been made from the said panel and from those persons who were working along with the petitioner who have not the required post-graduate qualification 8. The further contention of the respondents is that those persons who were originally working as Demonstrators prior to the requirement of postgraduate qualification have been redesignated as Lecturer who have postgraduate qualification. All appointments to the post of Lecturer have been made to those persons who have postgraduate qualification. They have also stated in the counter-affidavit that no new appointment to the post of Lecturer shall be made without proper advertisement and without obtaining concurrence of the B. P. S. C. authorities. The respondents have further stated that they have taken this stand in view of the resolution made by the Health department dated 19th June, 1991 in which it was decided that the posts of lecturer will be filled up by the person holding Post-Graduate Medical degree. It has further been pointed out that the departments Resolution dated 19th june, 1991 also makes it clear that the recruitment to the posts of Lecturer shall be done through Bihar Public Service Commission and as such the Panel which was not prepared on the basis of the selection conducted by the B. P. S. C. could not be approved. It is further stated that the said resolution of the health Department, Government of bihar has been issued in terms of the provisions of Sec.22 of the Indian medical Council Act, 1970. The said resolution even though issued in 1991. It was made effective from the month of july, 1989. The respondents submit that no appointment can be made ignoring the said circular. 9. In respect of the appointments made to the Private respondents from outside of the panel, the State respondent are taking a stand that those respondents were appointed on basis of their qualification as all of them were holding post-graduate degrees. The respondents submit that no appointment can be made ignoring the said circular. 9. In respect of the appointments made to the Private respondents from outside of the panel, the State respondent are taking a stand that those respondents were appointed on basis of their qualification as all of them were holding post-graduate degrees. In the counter-affidavit the State-respondents have made it clear that there were a number of vacancies of Lecturer and since teaching work was suffering due to shortage of teachers, some appointments were made in favour of the private respondents who fulfil the requisite qualification in terms of the resolution of the Health Department 10. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, the respondents have further stated that the reasons for non-approval of the panel was that the Central Council of indian Medicine had laid down the minimum eligibility criteria for the purpose of appointment to the post of Lecturer was post-graduate qualification which appears from Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. Therefore, there is no question of making any appointments of the petitioners from the said panel. It has further been stated by the respondents that the post of Medical Officer and the post of Lecturer is in the same pay scale and they are also in the same cadre, but since the post of Lecturer involves teaching work therefore the state-respondents in accordance with the direction of the Central Counsel of indian Medicine had to take resolution to the effect that no person can be appointed to the post of Lecturer. If the person concerned does not have the post-graduate degree. It is further stated that as there were some vacancies to the post of lecturer, and amount the demonstrator some of them were holding the requisite qualifications of post graduate degree for appointment on such posts, therefore, the appointment to the post of lecturer have been made. As the petitions do hot have requisite qualification of post-graduate degree, they cannot be appointed on the post of lecturer. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on own decisions of the Supreme Court in support of their contentions. In the case of osmania University Teachers Association offence V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in A. I. R.1987 S. C. page 2034, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said judgment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on own decisions of the Supreme Court in support of their contentions. In the case of osmania University Teachers Association offence V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in A. I. R.1987 S. C. page 2034, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said judgment. This Court is of the view that the said judgment in the case of Osmania university (supra) has no relevance to the point at issue in the present case. In paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said judgment in the case of Osmania University (supra) the learned judges of the Supreme Court made a comparison between the provisions of the University Grant Commission Act and the Commissioner to Act passed by the State Legislature came to the conclusion that the later Act is beyond legislative competence of the State legislature which falls under entry 66 schedule VII list of the Constitution. Here those questions have neither been convassed nor argued. Therefore, the said judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Osmania University (supra)has no application to the facts of this case. 12. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendran and Ors. V/s. State of karnataka and Ors. reported in A. I. R.1990 S. C. page 405. The said judgment was also on the principle of construction of statute, and in the said decision in the case of Mahendran (supra) the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were of the view that normally the statute or the statutory rules are prospective unless it is made retrospective expressly or by necessary implication. If a Rule is expressed in language, which is fairly capable of either interpretation even then it ought to be construed as prospective. In other words, in the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect exception matters of procedure. In the said decision of P. Mahendra, (supra) the process of selection commenced in 1983. The learned Judge of the Supreme court came to the conclusion that the said process must 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. 13. The learned Judge of the Supreme court came to the conclusion that the said process must 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. 13. In the instant case, no selection had actually been taken place, only a panel has been prepared. The Apex court has made it clear on a number of occasion that empanellment does not confer any right to a person to get an appointment. In the instant case before the panel could be approved, the government Resolution dated 19th february, 1991 came into effect and the said resolution has been given express retrospective operation from July, 1989. Therefore, ratio of the case of P. Mahendran (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. 14. Further reliance has been placed by the petitioners Counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. T. Bevin Katti etc. vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others reported in A. I. R.1990 S. C.1233. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment the following observations have been made- "generally, a candidate has right to be 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 amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection in that event selection must be 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, are not retrospective in nature the selection must be 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. 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. To avoid confusion, it may be made clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right for 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. " 15. Here the difficulty of applying the ratio in the case of N. T. Bevin Katti (supra) is that before the panel could be finalised the petitioners cannot be said to have been validly selected. Before the finalisation of the panel come the recommendation of the Central Medical counsel of India that in all teaching courses the minimum qualification should be the post-graduate degree. This decision was taken by the State government on the basis of the resolution of the Central Medical Counsel of india in accordance with the provisions of Sec.36 sub-section (1) Clauses (j)of Central Medical Counsel Act, 1970. The said decision came vide its resolution dated 19th June, 1990, which is the product of the State Government on the recommendation of the Central Medical counsel which is statutory in nature. The said resolution of the State government dated 19th June, 1991 has been made retrospective with affect from 1st July, 1989. As such, the selection of the petitioner must be abide by the requirement of the said regulation and the ratio of the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of N. T. Bevin katti (supra) is not applicable in the present fact situation. 16. Considering the aforesaid rival contentions and for the reasons already enumerated in this judgment, this court is of the view that the petitioners contention cannot be accepted. The stand taken by the respondents is fair and reasonable, but the said stand has been taken on the basis of the statutory regulation framed by it in 1991. 16. Considering the aforesaid rival contentions and for the reasons already enumerated in this judgment, this court is of the view that the petitioners contention cannot be accepted. The stand taken by the respondents is fair and reasonable, but the said stand has been taken on the basis of the statutory regulation framed by it in 1991. This court makes it clear that the petitioner has not been able to point out that any person have been appointed to the post-lecturer who does not have the postgraduate degree. 17. The Supreme Court has pointed out in its constitutional Bench judgment in the case of the state of Jammu and Kashmir V/s. Triloki Nath Khosa and others reported in A. I. R.1974 S. C.1, the educational qualification can be the basis for a valid classification in matters of appointment and the petitioners ask cannot be compared with those persons who are having post graduate degrees. The petitioners without having the said degree cannot be claim to be appointed on the post of lecturer. The private respondents have the requisite qualification and therefore, their appointment cannot be said to be illegal. 18. In view of the reasons stated above, both the writ-petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. 19. It is, however, made clear that in future appointment to the post of lecturer, the respondent authorities must strictly abide by the circular dated 19th june, 1991. Such appointment must be made on the basis of the selection made by the B. P. S. C. , and the respondents authority are directed to initiate selection procedure in accordance with the aforesaid resolution dated 19th June, 1991 as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. 20. This writ-petition is dismissed subject to the aforessaid observation. Petition Dismissed.