M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 30. 9. 1997. In this case a Division Bench had issued notice to the respondents on 7. 11. 1997 but none has appeared for respondents. In view of Explanation II of Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the allahabad High Court Rules, notices are deemed to be served on the respondents. ( 2 ) IT appears that the writ petitioners were appointed in Saraswati Sanskrit Pathshala, Purematha, p. O. Puremoti, district Pratapgarh on various dates from 1970 onwards. The appellant No. 1 was appointed as Principal and other appellants as teachers in the said institution, which is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and is governed by the U. P. State universities Act. 1973. Their services were also approved by the Inspector/assistant Inspector of sanskrit Pathshala vide approval orders dated 30. 3. 1976 and 3. 2. 1978 Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition and they were getting their salary. However, it appears that subsequent to the petitioners appointment and approval, the First Statutes were framed for Sampurnanand Sanskrit vishwavidyalaya which came Into effect on 26. 12. 1978. Since it was alleged that the petitioners did not have the qualifications prescribed in the Ist Statutes, their services were terminated on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification for the posts which they were holding. They made a representation to the Chancellor which was rejected, hence they filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 30. 9. 1997 and hence this special appeal, ( 3 ) WE are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned single Judge is incorrect and deserves to be set aside. The learned single Judge has observed that the petitioners did not possess the qualification mentioned In the first Statutes of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, and hence their services were rightly terminated. Learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. B. Godiyal submitted that the first Statutes were not made retrospective and hence they cannot apply to the petitioners. Moreover, the Statutes of the University are delegated Legislation and delegated legislation cannot be held to be retrospective unless the parent Act permits it. We are of the opinion that these submissions are correct. Learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. B. Godiyal submitted that the first Statutes were not made retrospective and hence they cannot apply to the petitioners. Moreover, the Statutes of the University are delegated Legislation and delegated legislation cannot be held to be retrospective unless the parent Act permits it. We are of the opinion that these submissions are correct. ( 4 ) THE learned single Judge has observed that when the petitioners were appointed initially, there was no prescribed qualification for the post. Hence there Is no dispute that when the petitioners were appointed initially, their initial appointments were valid. In our opinion, since the First statutes of the University were not retrospective, the petitioners services could not be terminated on the ground that they did not possess the qualifications prescribed in the Ist Statutes. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the appellants were initially appointed, the minimum qualifications prescribed for teachers was Uttar Madhyama equivalent to the Intermediate Examination and the appellants possessed that qualification. At that time the varanasi Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1956, was in force, but this was subsequently repeated by Section 74 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, under which the first Statutes of the university were framed which came into effect from 26. 12. 1978. The appellants were appointed much before 26,12. 1978 and hence the First Statute do not apply to them. ( 6 ) IN Smt. Sarla Srivastava v. DIOS, Allahabad and others in Writ Petition No, 10441 of 1994 decided on 11. 9. 1997, this Court has held that if there were no Rules at the time of the petitioners initial appointment, she could not be held to be unqualified by subsequent prescription of a qualification. Similar view was taken in Rikshpal Singh v. Secretary, U. P. Basic Education Board and others, 1990 UPLBEC 351. In P. D. Agarwal v. State of U. P. and others. 1987 (3) SCC 622 , the Supreme Court held that a vested right cannot be taken away by a retrospective amendment to the Rules. In our opinion, the case of the appellants is on a stronger footing than P. O. Agarwals case because here there Is no retrospective amendment. In P. D. Agarwal v. State of U. P. and others. 1987 (3) SCC 622 , the Supreme Court held that a vested right cannot be taken away by a retrospective amendment to the Rules. In our opinion, the case of the appellants is on a stronger footing than P. O. Agarwals case because here there Is no retrospective amendment. ( 7 ) IN our opinion if the stand of the respondents is accepted, it will mean that an employee could have been working on a post for twenty-five years and then he could be subsequently told that a qualification has now been prescribed for his post which he does not possess and consequently his service is being terminated. In our opinion, this would be wholly arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral development Corporation. 1990 (1) SCC, the Supreme Court has held that where daily rated workers had been serving for long periods, they could not subsequently be told that they did not possess the minimum educational qualification as that qualification was relevant at the stage of initial appointment but not at the stage of confirmation. A similar view was taken in Smt. Uma rani Mishra v. Committee of Management, 1998 (16) LCD 618. ( 8 ) IN our opinion, the orders terminating the service of the petitioners were illegal and they are hereby quashed. The judgment of the learned single Judge dated 30. 7,1997 is set aside. The appellants will be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. ( 9 ) THE appeal is allowed. .