JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the advertisement notifying the vacancies for various posts Including the vacancy of Coal Mines Provident Fund Inspector published in the Employment News, dated 28th December, 1996 by respondent No. 3 inviting applications for direct recruitment of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Inspector, on the ground that the same is in violation of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Employees Recruitment) Amendment Rules, 1996 (Annexure A). 3. The main case of the petitioner is that though in the Hindi Version of the Notification dated 27th May, 1996, it was provided that 50% posts are to be filled by promotion failing which by deputation and 50% by direct recruitment but in the English Version, it was provided that the post will be filled up by promotion failing which by 50% by deputation and 50% by direct recruitment. Thus, there was difference between the Hindi Version and English Version of the Notification, dated 27th May, 1996. 4. By order dated. 20.4.1998, this Court directed the respondents to file the Hindi Version of the said Notification. The same has been filed as (Annexure G). The respondents have also annexed the Corrigendum Notification being GSR No. 355, dated 23rd September, 1997, correcting the English Version of Notification No. 241, dated 27th May, 1996. 5. The main dispute raised by the petitioner in this case was that the English Version of the Notification No. GSR 241, dated 27th May, 1996 issued by the Ministry of Coal, New Delhi will prevail and not the Hindi Version of the said notification being GSR 241, dated 27th May, 1996 and the appointment should be made as per the English. Version of the notification. By a Corrigendum Notification being GSR No. 355, dated 23rd September, 1997, issued by the Ministry of Coal, New Delhi, it appears that for the words "By Promotion failing which by (i) 50% by deputation (ii) 50% by direct recruitment" was to be read as "(i) 50% by promotion failing which by deputation (ii) 50% by direct recruitment". The said Corrigendum Notification is a part of Annexure C. 6. The said Corrigendum Notification is a part of Annexure C. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the post was advertised on 28th September, 1996, i.e. before the Corrigendum Notification was issued and therefore the appointment should be made as per the original notification dated 27th May, 1996 and not as per the Corigendum Notification. He relied on the Judgment reported in (1997) 10 SCC 419 . 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is nothing in the Corrigendum Notification to show that the same will be prospective and therefore as per the settled principle of Interpretation, the Corrigendum Notification will take affect from the date of the main notification. 8. After hearing the parties, I am of the view that the Corrigendum Notification being GSR 355, dated 23rd September, 1997 will take affect from the date of the original notification being GSR dated 27th May, 1996. In that.view of the matter, there remains no difference between English and Hindi Version, and. the challenge does not survive. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.