SHITLA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was respondent in the writ petition, against the judgment and order dated 24. 2. 1997 passed by learned single Judge. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts for the purposes of the present appeal, as stated by the petitioner-respondent are that the petitioner obtained Diploma in Civil Engineering from Government Polytechnic College, jhansi, in the year 1984. In Zila Parishad, Jhansi, there was requirement of two Junior Engineers. The Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Parishad, wrote a letter on 23. 8. 1984 to the Principal, government Polytechnic College, Jhansi, for sending ten names from the merit list of the candidates having Civil Engineering Diploma for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer. Petitioners name was sent by the Principal, Polytechnic College, Jhansi. The Zila Parishad, jhansi, permitted the petitioner to join on the post of Junior Engineer, Civil with effect from 26. 10. 1984. As sanction for regular post was not received by the Commissioner. Jhansi Division, jhansi, the petitioner was appointed on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 12 per day. It is further stated that subsequently vide order dated 9. 1. 1985 sanction for two permanent posts was given by the Commissioner. Jhansi Division, Jhansi. The Zila Parishad Initiated proceedings for appointment on the permanent post. On 20. 10. 1986, the petitioner appeared before the selection committee constituted by Zila Parishad for selection on the post of Junior Engineer and it is alleged that he was found suitable and eligible for the permanent post of Junior Engineer, but before the appointment letter could be Issued a radiogram dated 18. 2. 1987 was Issued by the government by which the appointments were stopped on those posts since these posts were likely to be treated in Central Transferable Cadre. Thus, according to the petitioner, subsequently vide U. P. Zila Parishad (Central Transferable Cadre) 5th Amendment Rules, 1987, which was published in the U. P. Extraordinary Gazette Part IVth dated 1. 2. 1987, the post of Junior engineer was included in the Central Transferable Cadre and by the Schedule, the appointing authority was substituted as the State Government. Thus, according to the petitioner, subsequently vide U. P. Zila Parishad (Central Transferable Cadre) 5th Amendment Rules, 1987, which was published in the U. P. Extraordinary Gazette Part IVth dated 1. 2. 1987, the post of Junior engineer was included in the Central Transferable Cadre and by the Schedule, the appointing authority was substituted as the State Government. The contention of the petitioner is that he was fully entitled to continue on the post of Junior Engineer since his selection was completed prior to the amendment in the rule and as the amendment became enforceable with effect from 1. 5. 1987, hence the petitioner was entitled to get appointment. It Is further stated by the petitioner that he wrote a letter on 23. 4. 1987 for Issuance of regular appointment letter on the post of Junior Engineer. It is further stated that the District Magistrate/president, Zila Parishad, jhansi vide his letter dated 2. 5. 1987 wrote to the Government asking its permission for the appointment on the post. Subsequently, a recommendation was made by the District Magistrate as President, Zila Parishad on 31. 7. 1987 for the appointment of the petitioner on the post of junior Engineer. The petitioner, it is stated, also wrote a letter to the Secretary, Panchayat Raj, u. P. Government, Lucknow for his appointment on the post of Junior Engineer in Zila Parishad, jhansi. It is stated that reminders were sent by the District Magistrate but the petitioner was continuing only the post of Junior Engineer as daily wager and he has not been paid his dally wages with effect from 1. 6. 1989. The petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise his service on the post of Junior Engineer in Zila Parishad, Jhansi and has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary for the post of Junior Engineer. Zila Parishad, Jhansi, with effect from June, 1989 and other benefits of service. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by one Hari Ram Yadav, a Public Work Clerk in Zila parishad, Jhansi, against the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners initial appointment was only a temporary appointment on daily wages. It is further stated that the petitioner was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was Issued to him and he was permitted to work on work charge. It is stated that the petitioners initial appointment was only a temporary appointment on daily wages. It is further stated that the petitioner was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was Issued to him and he was permitted to work on work charge. He has not worked continuously from 25. 10. 1984 rather there are breaks in service and he was paid only for the days he worked. It is also stated that petitioners work was unsatisfactory. It is admitted that the petitioner was called for interview but the committee could not finalize the selection as there were complaints against the selection committee and enquiry was made and before it could be completed, a radiogram was received that the post had come under Central Transferable Cadre and Government was made the appointing authority. It is stated that the District Magistrate wrote letter but the State Government took policy decision that the State Government will make all appointments of Junior Engineers which were of Central transferable Cadre and no approval to appoint the petitioner was accorded. It is further stated that from June, 1989 to August. 1989, the petitioner did not work under the guidance and instructions of the Engineer. He did not produce the stock register for verification, therefore, the payment could not be made from September, 1989 till January. 1990. In February. March and april, 1990, no work was done by the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE main question for determination before the learned single Judge was as to whether the state Government could take power of Zila Parishad to appoint any person on the post of Junior engineer by issuing a radiogram. The second question was as to whether the petitioner got any right on the basis of interview even though no appointment letter was issued to him and the third question was as to whether any right to get appointment on the basis of selection vested in the petitioner and could the State Government amend the existing rules for the appointment of Junior engineer of nullifying the whole selection process. ( 5 ) THE learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as a permanent Junior Engineer of Zila Parishad, Jhansi, with effect from 26. 10. 1986 and further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the payment of salary, etc. ( 5 ) THE learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as a permanent Junior Engineer of Zila Parishad, Jhansi, with effect from 26. 10. 1986 and further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the payment of salary, etc. It was also made clear that from the date of enforcement of the Rules, the petitioner will be subject to and governed by the Rules in all other matters relating to his service. The Zila Parishad, Jhansi, has challenged the order of the learned single Judge by means of the present special appeal. ( 6 ) WE have heard Sri K. N. Saksena, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent Udai Pratap Shukla. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Sri K. N. Saksena has vehemently urged that the petitioner has not claimed in the writ petition any permanent appointment on the basis of the selection rather he had claimed to regularise his service on the post of Junior Engineer and prayed for salary of a Junior Engineer in the same scale of pay which is admissible to the regular Junior engineer, therefore, the petitioner cannot urge that he was appointed on the basis of some selection. His contention is that, in fact the selection list was never declared as complaint against the committee was made and enquiry committee was constituted. The petitioner was never declared as selected candidate, therefore, he could not be given any permanent appointment on the basis of the selection dated 26. 10. 1986. His further contention is that he was a daily wager and his service could not be regularised unless there was some statutory Rules for the regularisation. It is further stated by Sri Saksena that the result of the selection committee was not declared and the petitioner was not declared as selected candidate. The last submission of Sri saksena is that one post of Junior Engineer was regularised before actual selection and appointment and now the selection could be made only by the State Government and not by the zila Parishad therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the relief claimed by him. His further contention is that the cases relied upon by learned single Judge are not applicable to the facts of the present case. His further contention is that the cases relied upon by learned single Judge are not applicable to the facts of the present case. According to Sri Saksena the selection on the basis of the names called from employment Exchange did not give any vested right to the petitioner for appointment. ( 8 ) IN reply Sri Ashok Bhushan appearing for the respondent has vehemently urged that selection was the process of appointment. It has further been contended that the petitioner has filed a supplementary rejoinder-affidavit In which he has stated that the Zila Parishad has sent the names of three persons, namely, Prakash Narain, Munna Lal Vishwakarma and the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner has also filed a supplementary-affidavit to the effect that he was initially appointed on 26. 10. 1984 as Junior Engineer by Zila Parishad. Jhansi in contemplation of creation of two new posts. The two posts of Junior Engineers were created vide order dated 9. 1. 1985 of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. The petitioner continued to work and as with effect from 18. 2. 1987 the post of Junior Engineer was included in the Central transferable Cadre and the provisions of U. P. Zila Parishad (Central Transferable Cadre) Rules, 1966, were made applicable for recruitment of Junior Engineer with effect from 18. 2. 1987 and the State Government issued Government Order dated 20. 4. 1988 directing for continuance of all the employees working since prior to 1. 5. 1987 till they are regularized and recruitment was made in the Central Transferable Cadre the petitioner was entitled to be regularised. It is further submitted that the State Government subsequently on 9. 2. 1990 wrote letter to the Zila Parishad to send the names of the Junior Engineers, who were working in the Zila Parishad and the Zila parishad submitted requisite information to the State Government on 26. 2. 1990, therefore, the petitioner was also entitled for the regularisation of his service. Sri Ashok Bhushan has further submitted that even If the radiogram was issued by the State Government and the appointment was to be made by the State Government it will not affect the power of the Zila Parishad to appoint a person on the post for which interview was held prior to the issuance or radiogram, changing the appointing authority. Sri Ashok Bhushan has further submitted that even If the radiogram was issued by the State Government and the appointment was to be made by the State Government it will not affect the power of the Zila Parishad to appoint a person on the post for which interview was held prior to the issuance or radiogram, changing the appointing authority. ( 9 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at length to appreciate the points urged by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to see as to what was the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition and what was the finding given by the learned single Judge. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief, which is quoted herein below : " (i) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer in the Zila Parishad, jhansi. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction In the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary for the post of Junior Engineer, Zila Parishad. Jhansi, w. e. f. June, 1989 and other benefits of service. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the same scale of pay and other emoluments to the petitioner which is admissible to the regularly recruited Junior Engineers working in the Zila Parishad from the date when the petitioner is working in the Zila Parishad, Jhansi and to give him other consequential benefit. (iv) Issue such other and further writ, order or direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v) Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner. " ( 10 ) A bare perusal of the aforesaid prayer would show that the petitioner has claimed regularisation of his service. In relief (iii) the petitioner has specifically prayed to pay the same scale of pay and other emoluments to the petitioner which is admissible to the regularly recruited junior Engineers working in the Zila Parishad from the date when the petitioner is working in the zila Parishad, Jhansi and to give him other consequential benefits. Meaning thereby the petitioner is claiming benefit from the date of his first appointment in the Zila Parishad. Meaning thereby the petitioner is claiming benefit from the date of his first appointment in the Zila Parishad. The petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition has stated that the Zila Parishad, Jhansi, considered the names sent by the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Jhansi and found the petitioner as most suitable candidate for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer. The Zila parishad permitted the petitioner to join on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) with effect from 26. 10. 1984. It is further stated that the petitioner was allowed to join as work charge Junior engineer (Civil) with effect from October 26, 1984, since by that time, the sanction for regular post had not been received by the Commissioner. Jhansi Division, Jhansi. The petitioner has further admitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made on dally wages of Rs. 12. In view of this submission made by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner was claiming regularisation of service from 26. 10. 1984. It is also clear from the relief that the petitioner has not initially claimed any relief for issue of appointment letter on the basis of the interview held on 26. 10. 1986. It is true that the petitioner has mentioned the fact In various paragraphs of the writ petition but has admitted that before the appointment letter could be Issued, a radiogram was received from the State Government by which the appointments were directed to be stopped on those posts since they were liable to be treated in Central Transferable Cadre. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted that subsequently vide U. P. Zila Parishad (Central transferable Cadre) Fifth Amendments Rules. 1987, which was published in the U. P. Extraordinary Gazette Part IVth dated 1. 2. 1987, the post of Junior Engineer was Included in the central Transferable Cadre and by the Schedule, the appointing authority was substituted as the state Government. From a perusal of this submission and the admission made by the petitioner It is apparent on the face of record that the petitioner never claimed relief on the basis of his interview. ( 11 ) NOW the question Is as to whether the petitioner has right for regularisation of his services on the basis of his first appointment made by the Zila Parishad, Jhansi. ( 11 ) NOW the question Is as to whether the petitioner has right for regularisation of his services on the basis of his first appointment made by the Zila Parishad, Jhansi. Sri Saxena has submitted that a daily wager on the contractual basis has no right to get the same pay scale, which a regular employee gets. For that purpose, he has placed reliance in a case in State of Haryana v. Surinder kumar and others, 1997 (3) ST 406. This judgment is a very short judgment and relevant paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment are quoted herein below : "4. The controversy is no longer res judicata. This Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, has laid down the guidelines for appointment by recruitment and if need by regularisation of class IV employees. As a consequence, any appointment made to the service shall be in accordance with the statutory Rules and also the guidelines laid down thereunder. Therefore, the appellant Is directed to consider their cases in accordance with law and guidelines laid down therein for appointment of the respondents to the service as per law provided they are otherwise eligible. If they have become age barred, age may be relaxed for the period they have worked. On appointment, from that date they will be entitled to equal pay on par with the regular clerks. 5. Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the posts held by the respondents are interchangeable and In fact they have been interchanged to enable them to hold the posts. The contentions cannot be given acceptance for the reason that since the respondents were appointed on contract basis on dally wages, they cannot have any right to a post as such until they are duly selected and appointed. Merely because they are able to manage to have the posts interchanged, they cannot become entitled to the same pay scale which the regular clerks are holding by claiming that they are discharging their duties as regular employees. The very object of selection is to test the eligibility and then to make selection in accordance with Rules prescribed for recruitment. Obviously the respondents recruitment was not made in accordance with the Rules. The very object of selection is to test the eligibility and then to make selection in accordance with Rules prescribed for recruitment. Obviously the respondents recruitment was not made in accordance with the Rules. " ( 12 ) THE facts of above noted case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and it is apparent that the petitioner was not recruited in accordance with the Rules rather he was only a dally wager. Sri Saxena has further placed reliance in a case in State of U. P. and others v. Ajai kumar, 1997 (2) ST 755. This judgment is also a very short judgment and relevant paragraph 3 of the judgment is quoted herein below : "the admitted position is that the respondent came to be appointed on daily wage basis on february 14, 1985, as class IV employee. Nursing Orderly, in the Medical College by the medical Superintendent. When the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for his regularisation, the learned single Judge pointed out that the respondent has not brought to the notice of the Court, any statutory Rule under which the respondent could be regularised, on the basis of the service rendered by him as a daily wage earner. Even the method of recruitment adopted by the Superintendent was not proper inasmuch as he did not call applications. The division Bench reversed the decision of the learned single Judge and had given directions. It is now settled legal position that there should exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory Rules must be in operation to appoint a person to the post. Daily wage appointment will obviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post that it continues so long as the work exists. Under these circumstances the Division Bench was clearly in error in directing the appellant to regularise the service of the respondent to the post as and when the vacancy arises and to continue him until then. The direction in the backdrop of the above facts is, obviously, illegal. Under these circumstances the Division Bench was clearly in error in directing the appellant to regularise the service of the respondent to the post as and when the vacancy arises and to continue him until then. The direction in the backdrop of the above facts is, obviously, illegal. " ( 13 ) IN the present case, the petitioner has stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that in the zila Parishad, Jhansi, there was requirement of two Junior Engineers to cope with the increasing work load of the Parishad and already there were two posts of Junior Engineers sanctioned on which persons were employed and working. The Zila Parishad had already sent recommendation for sanction of many additional posts in Zila Parishad including two posts of Junior Engineers to the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi vide their letter dated 2. 7. 1984. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he was allowed to join as work charge Junior Engineer (Civil) with effect from 26. 10. 1984 since by that time, the sanction for regular post had not been received by the Commissioner. Jhansi Division. Jhansi and appointment was made to cope with the increasing work load of the Zila Parishad. This admission of the petitioner is sufficient to hold that there was no post of Junior Engineer when the petitioner was permitted to work as dally wager and the decision cited by Sri Saxena is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 14 ) THE second argument of Sri Saxena is that the select list was never declared and before the appointment letter could be issued, a radiogram was received. Therefore, the petitioner got no right on the basis of the interview only. For that purpose, he has placed reliance in a case in satya Pal Singh v. State of U. P. and others, (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1919 , where this Court has held that mere such inclusion of the name in the select list does not give right to the petitioner for appointment. Relevant paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Judgment are quoted herein below : "4. Relevant paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Judgment are quoted herein below : "4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the Rule of 1993 could not be given effect to retrospectively and since the petitioners name stood in the select list prepared before the commencement of the said Rules, he was entitled to get appointment on the post of Assistant Boring Technician as the post was lying vacant in the said Cadre before the commencement of the Rules. " "5. Rule of 1993 came into force with effect from 19. 10. 1993 and there is no dispute about that. Under the said Rules the appointment on the post of Assistant Boring Technician can be made only in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules and power to make appointment vests in the Commission constituted under the provisions of the said Rules. Admittedly the petitioners name figured in the last at serial No. 3 in the list of Scheduled Caste candidates and all the persons who were given appointments were placed higher in the rank than the petitioner in the select list. It is not the case of the petitioner that persons lower in rank than him have been preferred over the petitioner and his claim was ignored, while making appointments from the said select list. The mere fact that the petitioners name figured in the select list that by itself would not confer any right on him to be appointed on a particular post. It is always open for the government to fill-up any vacancy or to keep it vacant or_in abeyance and no persons can claim as of right that he should be given appointment and the post is filled up. It is well-settled law that the inclusion of candidates name in the merit list does not confer any right to be appointed. (See shankardan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1612 : JT 1996 (1) SC 258 ). " "6. Assuming that any post of Assistant Boring Technician was lying vacant at the time of the enforcement of the Rules, the same can be filled only In accordance with the provisions of the rules and not otherwise after the commencement of the Rules. " "6. Assuming that any post of Assistant Boring Technician was lying vacant at the time of the enforcement of the Rules, the same can be filled only In accordance with the provisions of the rules and not otherwise after the commencement of the Rules. It is settled law that once the statutory Rules have been made, appointments have to be made only in accordance; with the rules and not otherwise, Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder mohan and others, AIR 1994 SC 1800. " ( 15 ) THE facts of this case are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. It has been admitted by the petitioner that Interview was held on 26. 10. 1986 but before appointment letter was Issued to him the State Government had changed the policy of the appointment, therefore, as per decision quoted above, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the interview held which was never declared, Sri Saxena has placed reliance in a case in State of Bihar v. Kumar Pramod Narain Singh and others, 1997 (5) ST 35. The important point decided in this case was that when the Service Commission or the Board selects the candidates, the normal criteria required is to prepare the list of the candidates selected In the order of their merit and then to recommend to the Government for appointment to the post. It is not mandatory for the government to accept option of candidates and make appointment. ( 16 ) IN view of the fact that neither the Interview was held nor any select list was prepared as stated by the petitioner and even if it was prepared and not declared, we are of the view that the petitioner gets no right to get appointment. Sri Saxena has further submitted that when a new Act or Rules have come, then a person cannot take benefit of any provisions of old Act. For that purpose he has placed reliance in a case in Prakash Chandra Sahu v. State Transport Authority and others, 1997 (3) ST 408. Though it is a case under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act but the question was as to whether the renewal of the permit for permanent stage carriage can be granted under Act 4 of 1939 when the Act, 1988 has come into force. Though it is a case under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act but the question was as to whether the renewal of the permit for permanent stage carriage can be granted under Act 4 of 1939 when the Act, 1988 has come into force. The Court held that when new Act came into force parties must apply for renewal of their permits under the new Act. Sri saxena has further submitted that if there is some recruitment Rules requiring selection through public Service Commission-Executive cannot relax in exercise of general powers. For that purpose, he has placed reliance on a case in Jandk Public Service Commission etc. v. Dr. Narinder mohan and others etc. etc. , AIR 1994, SC 1808. Relevant head notes of the judgment are quoted below : " (3) J. andk. Medical Education (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules (1979), Rr. 9, 5 and Sch. III -- Recruitment through selection by Public Service Com mission-Requirement cannot be relaxed by executive in exercise of its general powers--ad hoc appointment--cannot be treated as made under Rules. Recruitment-Rules requiring selection through Public Service Commission-Executive cannot relax in exercise of general powers. " Paragraph 10 of the judgment is relevant, which is quoted herein below :"10. The next question is whether the direction given by the High Court to regularise the services of the respondents is valid in law. It is true that the ad hoc appointees have been continuing from 1986 onwards but their appointments are de hors the Rules. Rules prescribe only two modes of recruitment, namely, direct recruitment or promotion by selection. As regards the Lecturers are concerned, it is only by direct recruitment. The mode of recruitment suggested by the High court, namely, regularisation by placing the service record of the respondent before the P. S. C. and consideration thereof and P. S. C. s recommendation in that behalf is only a hybrid procedure not contemplated by the Rules. Moreover, when Rules prescribe direct recruitment, every eligible candidate is entitled to be considered and recruitment by open advertisement which is one of the well accepted modes of recruitment. Inviting applications for recruitment to fill in notified vacancies is consistent with the right to apply for by qualified and eligible persons and consideration of their claim to an office or post under the State is a guaranteed right given under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Inviting applications for recruitment to fill in notified vacancies is consistent with the right to apply for by qualified and eligible persons and consideration of their claim to an office or post under the State is a guaranteed right given under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The directions, therefore, issued by the Division Bench is in negation of Articles 14 and 16 and in violation to the statutory Rules. The P. S. C. cannot be directed to devise a third mode of selection, as directed by the High Court, nor be mandated to disobey the Constitution and the law. " ( 17 ) TO appreciate the argument of Sri Ashok Bhushan that selection was the process of the appointment and the petitioner was entitled to get appointment on the basis of the so- called selection. It is to be seen as to whether the petitioner was ever selected. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that there was complaint made against the interview and the selection committee, therefore, no select list was prepared and in the meantime State Government issued notification that now the appointment shall be made by the State Government. Sri Ashok bhushan has submitted that if the appointee was duly selected, the amended Rule will not be applicable. For that purpose, he has placed reliance in a case in Radhey Shyam and another v. State of U. P. and others, 1995 (2) LBESR, 189. The relevant paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below : "6. The facts, mentioned above, would show that U. P. Subordinate Educational Trained graduates Grade Service comprises Group c posts and the Selection Boards Act. 1988, applies in relation to direct recruitment to all such Group c posts which may be specified by the State government by Notification in this behalf. The State Government Issued a Notification on november 25, 1989, specifying the post of Assistant Teacher L. T. Grade as a Group c post to which Selection Boards Act, 1988, applied in relation to direct recruitment. Therefore, after the aforesaid Notification had been issued it was the Selection Board, which had the authority to make selection on the post of Assistant Teacher. The Selection Board issued advertisement on may 22, 1992, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher and the last date for submitting the application was June 15, 1992. Therefore, after the aforesaid Notification had been issued it was the Selection Board, which had the authority to make selection on the post of Assistant Teacher. The Selection Board issued advertisement on may 22, 1992, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher and the last date for submitting the application was June 15, 1992. It was after quite sometime that on November 6, 1992, the U. P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983, were amended and it was provided that the selection would be made on the basis of a Regional selection Committee. The post of Assistant Teacher was actually withdrawn from the purview of the Selection Board on February 15, 1993. The State Government also sent a communication clarifying that the selection on the vacancies which had already been intimated to the Selection board prior to the amendment in the Rules on November 6, 1992, shall be done by the Board itself and the amended Rule will not apply to such vacancies. This was reiterated in a communication sent by the Government on August 8, 1993, to the Secretary of the Selection board that the vacancies, which had been, notified prior to February 15, 1993, shall be made by the Board itself. Copies of these communications have been attached as Annexures-10 and 11 to the affidavit. Once the process of selection has commenced, a candidate, who is eligible and otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant Rules and the terms of advertisement, acquires 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 right on the amendment of the Rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended Rules are retrospective in nature. In N. T. Baven Katti v. Karnataka. Public Service Commission, AIR 1990 SC 1233 , it was held as follows : "where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing Rules or Government Orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules and Government Orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally a candidate had right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of publication of advertisement. " The amendment in the Rule was not retrospective. There is nothing to indicate either in the rules or in the Notification issued by the State Government on February 15, 1993, which may show that any retrospective effect was being given to the Rules or that selection on all pending vacancies was to be made by the Regional Selection Committee. Therefore, once the process of selection had commenced on May 23, 1992, by the Selection Board by issuing an advertisement inviting applications, the candidates who made application in response thereto acquired a vested right to be considered by the Selection Board and their right could not be effected by subsequent amendment in the Rules or notification dated February 15, 1993. For such candidate, the selection process had to be completed by the Selection Board and therefore, it was fully entitled to hold interview and the result of such interview published in January 22, 1995, is perfectly legal and valid. The candidates who have been so selected by the Board are in law regularly selected candidates and the State Government is fully entitled to appoint such candidates as assistant Teachers in Government colleges. " ( 18 ) THIS decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case, no doubt interview was held but no selection list was prepared. Sri Ashok Bhushan has further stated that selection proceedings pending before the Selection Board on the date of the enforcement of the amended Rule are not affected either by the amending Rules or by the Notification whereby the post of Asstt. Teachers (L. T. Grade) were withdrawn from the purview of the Selection Board. For that purpose he has placed reliance on a decision in Desh Raj Singh Negi v. State of U. P. and others. 1995 (1) LBESR 785 . Relevant paragraph 8 of the judgment is quoted herein below : "8. Teachers (L. T. Grade) were withdrawn from the purview of the Selection Board. For that purpose he has placed reliance on a decision in Desh Raj Singh Negi v. State of U. P. and others. 1995 (1) LBESR 785 . Relevant paragraph 8 of the judgment is quoted herein below : "8. The Rules made by the Notification dated 6th November, 1992, were published in U. P. Gazette Part 1 (Ka) dated 28th August 1993. Though the Notification provides that the rules shall come into force at once, but in view of Section 4 (29a) of the U. P. General Classes 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 even if 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. 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. 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 the 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 Notification dated 15. 2. 1993, it may be stated, has been issued in exercise of the powers under Section 2 (1) of the Act, whereas requisition was sent to the Board by the Director of Education under Rule 18 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. " the facts of this case are also of no help to the petitioner because the petitioner, as stated above, is not claiming the benefit on the basis of selection or interview, rather he is claiming for regularisation. ( 19 ) SRI Ashok Bhushan has further submitted that in view of Sections 39, 44 and 54 of the U. P. Zila Parishad Act, the State Government has power to regulate the working of the Zila Parishad. The Zila Parishad is a public body as defined under Section 2 and the State Government has only right to issue guidance to every public body. Rules 21 and 23 deals with the appointment, which is to be made according to the recommendation of the selection committee. Therefore, if the selection was valid and only the appointment letter was to be issued, the State Government cannot take away that right of the Zila Parishad. He has placed a case in Ram Kishan v. Union of india, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1194 . ( 20 ) LEARNED single Judge has also held that selection process for making appointment on the post of Junior Engineer in Zila Parishad, Jhansi, was conducted and concluded by the competent authority in accordance with the then existing Rules. He has placed a case in Ram Kishan v. Union of india, 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1194 . ( 20 ) LEARNED single Judge has also held that selection process for making appointment on the post of Junior Engineer in Zila Parishad, Jhansi, was conducted and concluded by the competent authority in accordance with the then existing Rules. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on the said post on permanent basis of the aforesaid selection. Learned single Judge has given benefit to the petitioner from the date of interview. which is not correct. When there was no select list prepared the petitioner cannot be held to be a duly selected person in the eye of law. Moreover, when the Government has issued notification that appointment is to be made by the State Government, we are of the view that the Zila Parishad has no right or authority to appoint the petitioner. ( 21 ) THE appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned single judge is hereby set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. .