JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioner calls in question the letter of the Administrative Officer, Orissa Maritime Academy informing him not to take admission, in view of the guidelines of the Director General of Shipping, changing the upper age limit for entry to Pre-Sea Rating Training (General Purpose) since he is crossing the prescribed age limit on the date fixed for admis¬sion. 2. The petitioner, a diploma holder in Mechanical Engi¬neering and had passed +2 Science Examination, applied for admis¬sion to Pre-Sea Rating Training (General Purpose) in Orissa Mari¬time Academy, Paradip (hereinafter called ‘Academy’), pursuant to the “Admission Notice” issued by the Academy in daily newspaper “Samaj” dated the 17th April, 2002, copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In letter dated 19th July, 2002, he was inti¬mated by the Administrative Officer of the Academy to report to the Principal on 12th August, 2002 at 8.00 A.M. along with re¬quired documents in original for appearing at an English test both written and oral for selection, which he complied with and took the test. 3. In letter dated 15th August, 2002 of the Academy, copy whereof is Annexure-4, the petitioner was informed to have been selected for undergoing the Pre-Sea General Purpose Rating Train¬ing commencing from 1.2.2003 and was asked to deposit Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) in shape of demand draft at the time of admission and instructed in the matter of accommodation and lodging and the like. When the matter stood thus and the peti¬tioner was ready with the funds for deposit and other necessary requirements, to his surprise, received the letter dated 18.12.2002, copy of which is Annexure-5, from the Administrative Officer of the Academy that he has become ineligible for admis¬sion, in view of the change of the upper age limit for admission to the training course by the Director General of Shipping, making it 21 years instead of 24½ years as fixed earlier, effec¬tive from 1.12.2002, since the petitioner was crossing the age limit on the date of admission i.e., 1.2.2003. Hence, the present writ petition for a direction to the opp. parties to admit him to the ensuing course and to quash the letter in Annexure-5. 4. Opposite parties have filed their return denying the claim of the petitioner on very many grounds. However, the factu¬al averments made in the writ petition are not in dispute. Hence, the present writ petition for a direction to the opp. parties to admit him to the ensuing course and to quash the letter in Annexure-5. 4. Opposite parties have filed their return denying the claim of the petitioner on very many grounds. However, the factu¬al averments made in the writ petition are not in dispute. It is stated in the Court that the Academy had issued a combined adver¬tisement on 17.4.2002 for selecting candidates for the course for 13th and 14th batches to commence from 1.9.2002 and 1.2.2003 respectively as is their normal practice and advance notice of selection and admission was given to ensure that candidates who are aged 24½ years and had been selected should be able to under¬go the training. M.S. Notice 24 of 2002 was received and came into effect. But such candidates who were above 21 years became ineligible for admission in view of the M.S. Notice No. 24 of 2002 issued by the Director General of Shipping copy whereof is Annexure-A/1 to the counter. 5. The revision of upper age limit for admission from 24½ years to 21 years by Annexure-A/1 is sought to be justified on the ground that catering to the need of International and Global Shipping Industries, in view of non-acceptance of Indian Sea-Farers due to late entry and availability of younger Sea-Farers of other count¬ries in the market, who are providing competition to Indians, the reduction of upper age limit was necessary. According to the opp. parties, the reduction of upper age for entry to the course would encourage young and enable foreign shipping companies to recruit Indian Sea-Farers at very early age. Several other reasons have been given to justify the reduction of upper age limit for entry to the course in M.S. Notice No. 24 of 2002 (Annexure-A/1) 6. We need not consider the same and find out whether or not, the revision is proper and legal, since legality or validity of change of upper age limit is neither challenged nor is the subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition. We need not consider the same and find out whether or not, the revision is proper and legal, since legality or validity of change of upper age limit is neither challenged nor is the subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition. What is under challenge is the applicability of the decision and the guidelines issued by the Director General of Shipping as con¬tained in M. S. Notice under Annexure-A/1 to the petitioner’s case for admission to the training, for which he had got selected much prior to the date of inception of the decision in M. S. Notice No. 24 of 2002. 7. Thus the core question for determination is as to whether, the petitioner having been duly and validly selected for admission into the course of Training, much prior to the decision of the Director General of Shipping in reducing the upper age limit for admission to the course as contained in M.S. Notice 24 of 2002 and communication thereof, such decision shall be appli¬cable to the case of the petitioner and he would legitimately be debarred of taking admission into the course as communicated in letter dated 18.12.2002 (Annexure-5). 8. It is the cardial principal of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. This rule is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective. Every statue which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disabili¬ty in respect of the action already taken, must be presumed to be intended not to have a retrospective effect. As a logical corol¬lary of the general rule that retrospective operation is not taken to be intended unless that intention is manifested by express words or necessary implication. It is the settled princi¬ple that the basis of the rule of general construction is fair¬ness, which should be the basis of every new addition. As a logical corol¬lary of the general rule that retrospective operation is not taken to be intended unless that intention is manifested by express words or necessary implication. It is the settled princi¬ple that the basis of the rule of general construction is fair¬ness, which should be the basis of every new addition. On the principle of construction of the amending statute or for that reason, amending criteria for selection is considered, it appears that in terms of the existing criteria for admission formulated by the Director General of Shipping, Government of India, the selections were made for the training course in ques¬tion and the petitioner having fulfilled the criteria laid there¬in, he was found eligible for admission and as such, he was inti¬mated to have been selected for undertaking the course commencing from 1.2.2003. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to selection of the petitioner and the intimation of such selection asking the petitioner to be admitted to the course on 1.2.2003 vide Academy’s communication dated 15th August, 2002 (Annexure-4). The entire exercise of inviting application for admission, process of selection and selection for admission was completed by 15th August, 2002, but the admission was only left to be done later. The Director General of Shipping in his M.S. Notice No. 24 of 2002 dated October 3, 2002 formulated new cri¬teria for selection of candidates for various Pre-Sea Training Courses, as would be evident from Annexure-A/1. In supersession of Training Branch Circular No. 5 of 2000 and 5 of 2001, M. S. Notice 22 of 2002 and all other circulars. M. S. 24 of 2002 was brought into operation with effect from 1st December, 2002. The upper age limit for entry to the course was reduced to 21 years from 24½ years, which was stipulated earlier for admission. In Paragraph-4 of the notice under Annexure-A/1, it is clearly stipulated that the selection procedure should be absolutely transparent and as such, the requirements specified therein should be published in detail in advertisement as well as in admission brochure. In Paragraph-7, cut off date for age limit has been prescribed. A candidate was required to be within the prescribed age, as in the date of commencement of the course and admission for short term courses i.e., from Sl. Nos. In Paragraph-7, cut off date for age limit has been prescribed. A candidate was required to be within the prescribed age, as in the date of commencement of the course and admission for short term courses i.e., from Sl. Nos. 1 to 5 including the course in question at serial 1 could be given for candidates, who have completed 17.5 years of age. It has been prescribed that in order to bring uniformity in examination etc., all short term courses shall in future commence only on the 1st working day of the month. Paragraph 9 thereof makes the notice effective from 1.12.2002 for all courses other than those men¬tioned under Serial No. 8. Paragraph-9 of the M.S. Notice 24 of 2002 reads thus : “9. Entry into force : This M. S. Notice shall be effective from 01.12.2002 for all the courses other than those mentioned under Sr. No. 8. But it shall be effective from 01.o2.2003 for the course listed under Sr.No. 8. i.e., one year Training Marine Engineering Course. Training Institutes/Workshops may, study this M. S. Notice carefully and implement the directives in strict compliance, and also give wide publicity thereto. Every advertisement released for maritime training after the date of issue of this M.S. Notice shall reflect only the criteria mentioned therein. (Emphasis supplied) A bare perusal of the directives of Paragraph-9 above, would unerringly suggest that the new criteria fixed in the M.S. Notice was intended to be applicable to fresh admissions, for which advertisements are yet to be issued. The directive issued therein to give wide publicity to the new criteria and incorporating it in advertisements released for meritime training after the date of issue of M. S. Notice by necessary implication makes it prospec¬tive, effective on the date of advertisement, for fresh admission at a future date. 9. In such view of the mater, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the criteria fixed under the M. S. Notice 24 of 2002 (Annexure-A/1) is intended to be prospective and effective for admissions, for which advertisements are to be issued after issuance of Annexure A/1 and not with retrospective effect to admission for which advertisements are issued, selections are made and intimations of selection and admissions are issued months prior to such M. S. Notice. 10. 10. Now coming to the case at hand, admittedly, the peti¬tioner was called to the test for admission by letter dated 19.7.2002 of the Administrative Officer of the Academy vide Annexure-3, the fact of his selection for admission to the course allowing with necessary instructions and for depositing the fees was intimated to him by letter dated 15th August, 2002 vide Annexure A. Only the part of admission was to be made on 1.2.2003. The petitioner therefore had already acquired a vested fright of admission into the course by the time the M. S. Notice 24 of 202 came fixing upper age limit at 21 instead of 24½ years only on 3rd October, 2002 and as such, such right cannot be taken away by an amendment which came later. The criteria fixed, as has been held earlier is for prospective admission and not intended to effect the admissions already made or decided. 9. In such view of the matter, the decision of the author¬ities that in view of the new criteria fixed by the Director General of Shipping, the petitioner’s admission is nullified and he cannot be admitted to the course, is illegal and not sustaina¬ble. The petitioner has been illegally deprived of taking the admission into the course in question commencing from 1st Febru¬ary, 2003. It appears that the session is already over and as such we direct the opposite parties to admit the petitioner into the next available course subject to fulfilling the other formal¬ities. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The letter of the Administrative Officer, Orissa Meritime Academy, Paradip in Annexure-5 is quashed and the petitioner is directed to be admitted to the next available Pre-Sea course for general purpose rating in the Orissa Maritime Academy, Paradip. However, there shall be no order as to cost. CH. P. K. MISRA, J. I agree. Petition allowed.