Honble VERMA, J.–Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties submit that another matter viz. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 940/96, Rukma Devi vs. State & Another, involving the same point, facts and law, is also pending and may also be decided alongwith the present writ petition viz., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 143/96, Vimla vs. State & Another. They have no objection if the same is decided alongwith S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 143/96. Accordingly, the case was got listed and, hence, this common order. (2). For the decision of these cases, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 143/96, Vimla vs. State & Another are discussed. The petitioner is widow of late Shri Dileep Bishnoi. In response to advertisement Annx. P/1 issued on 12.5.95 for recruit- ment of Teachers (Gr. III) for the year 1995-96, the petitioner was one of the applicants. It was stated in the advertisement that the minimum qualification required for the widows was Secondary or equivalent. It was further provided that the teachers-training certificate is not required for widows. It is not disputed that at the time when the advertisement was published, under the rules, so far the widow candidates were concerned, the minimum qualification was Secondary only. Panel of selected candidates was prepared on 30.5.95. The petitioners name appeared in the list of merit of the selected candidates at S. No. 7 as was she informed vide order dated 28.6.95 by the District Education Officer, Sriganganagar, copy of which letter is attached as Annex. 2. Later on, the petitioner came to know that even though she had been put on the select-list but had not been offered appointment to the post of Teacher (Gr. III) whereas two other teachers who were also widows and were appearing in the merit-list at S. No. 9 and 14 viz., Smt. Dimple Prem and Smt. Ganga Devi had been appointed from 13.12.95. Being aggrieved she made a representation. Finding no favourable response, she was forced to file the present writ petition. (3). The facts as stated above are admitted in the written- statement filed on behalf of the contesting respondents. It is admitted that she had applied in the category of widows. It is not disputed that at the time of issuing the advertisement the minimum qualification prescribed for the widows was Secondary only under the Rules. (3). The facts as stated above are admitted in the written- statement filed on behalf of the contesting respondents. It is admitted that she had applied in the category of widows. It is not disputed that at the time of issuing the advertisement the minimum qualification prescribed for the widows was Secondary only under the Rules. It is also not disputed that when the panel of selected candidates was prepared where the name of the petitioner appeared at S. No. 7 the minimum educational qualification remained the same. But, a defence has been taken in the written statement to the effect that vide another notification dated 25.8.95, the minimum educational qualification was changed from Secondary to Senior Secon- dary and, therefore, even though the petitioner was eligible and was also put on the panel list of selections, she was not offered the post of Teacher (Gr. III) as subsequent to such selection, the notification was issued wherein the qualification had been enhanced as stated above. It is admitted that appointments were made to the said category of widows who were much below than the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the respondents wants to justify this action on the ground that because of the reason that subsequently the qualification was changed and all those widow applicants who are having the Senior Secondary educational qualification were offered the appointment and those who were only Secondary were ignored even though they were in the merit. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the qualifications as prescribed at the time of the advertisement are to be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. It is the further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in any case when the selection-panel was formed and the petitioner was put on merit at S. No. 7, even at that time, the qualification was the same and any sub- sequent change of qualification by way of notification in the month of August 1995 cannot debar the petitioner to claim the post she had applied for, for the reason that she was qualified to hold the post at the time of the advertisement and also at the time of making the application and also selection. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argues that despite the admitted facts, the qualification once having been changed subsequently, but before offering the appointment, it debarred the petitioner to claim the post applied for. (5). In P. Mahendran & Others vs. State of Karnataka (1), during the process of selection for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors under the Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicle Branch) Rules, 1962 applications were invited and interviews were held in the year 1984. At the time of holding of the interviews and invitation of the applications, the qualifications prescribed were Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering. However, before the final selections could be made, the State of Karnataka had amended the recruitment rules in the year 1987 wherein the qualifications of recruitment had been changed. The Honble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any express provision contained in the amending rules, it must be held that the amending rules apply prospectively and the rules which are prospective in nature cannot take away or impair the right of the candidates holding diploma in Mechanical Engineering as on the date of making appointment as well as on the date of scrutiny by the Commission the can- didates were qualified for selection and appointment. (6). Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relies on Union of India vs. Yogendra Kumar (2) and Jagdish Chandra vs. Union of India (3). None of the judgments quoted by learned counsel for the respondents is applicable to the facts of the present case. (7). In Union of India vs. Yogenda Kumar (supra), the candidate was not interviewed as he did not possess the educational qualification as mentioned in the employment notice and it was held that no candidate who does not possess the currently prescribed qualification has any vested right to be appointed even against some earlier unfilled vacancy and that every candidate who aspired to fill the vacancy must possess the educational qualification that are then prescribed. (8). In the present case, the petitioner did fulfil the qualifications as were prescribed under the rules and mentioned in the advertisement Annex. 1 in May 1995. She was selected and put in panel on 13.5.95 and was so informed in June 1995. Had she been offered the appointment before August 1995, there would have been no difficulty. (8). In the present case, the petitioner did fulfil the qualifications as were prescribed under the rules and mentioned in the advertisement Annex. 1 in May 1995. She was selected and put in panel on 13.5.95 and was so informed in June 1995. Had she been offered the appointment before August 1995, there would have been no difficulty. The State could have offered the job even before modification of the qualifications. The State did not do so. In August, 1995, the State modified the qualifications and deprived the petitioner who was already on the select list. In my opinion, the petitioner had a right to be offered the appointment especially when the candidates below in merit had been so appointed. The constitutional rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 have been violated. The law is very clear that a candidate is to be considered for appointment at the time when the advertisement is made and on the basis of the current qualifications prescribed under the rules or in the advertisement and, if during the process of selection any change is made in the qualifications, that change cannot impair the right of such candidates and the change is to be made prospectively as has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in 1990 (1) S.C.C. 411 (supra). (9). Facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 940/96, Rukma Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Another. — The petitioner is also a widow who had applied for recruit-ment for Teacher (Gr. III) against the same advertisement as in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 143/96. She was selected and put on merit at S. No. 5 in the selection-list. She was also deprived of the appointment because of the reason that she was Secondary. For the reasons given hereinabove in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 143/96, this petition must also succeed and is allowed. (10). For the discussion and reasons given above, both the writ petitions must succeed. The petitioners shall be offered appointment from the date when any person below on the merit-list had been appointed as Teacher (Gr. III). They will be entitled to all consequential reliefs as well. The judgment shall be implemented within one month of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The writ petitions are allowed with cost of Rs. 1,000/- each.