Judgment Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order, as contained in memo dated 7.9.1999 (Annexure 9), whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of Graduate Trained Scale from the year 1986 has been rejected. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant to the petitioner the Graduate Trained Scale from the year 1986. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that by order dated 13th of September, 1982, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Matric Trained Scale. He had passed the Bachelor of Education Examination in November, 1986. The State Government by its letter as contained in memo dated 23rd of May, 1984 (Annexure1) took decision to fill up the posts of Graduate Trained Teachers from the existing Intermediate/Matric trained teachers having requisite qualification. In case, however, sufficient number of such teachers are not available. Matric untrained teachers were also made eligible for appointment as such. 3. It is the assertion of the petitioner that in pursuance of the aforesaid decision, a panel was prepared and sent for approval of the Director, but no decision was taken in regard thereto and no promotion was made. It is further assertion of the petitioners that 46 persons were appointed as Graduate Trained Teachers, which later on have been cancelled, but according to the petitioner, some of them are still continuing. 4. Later on, School Selection Board issued Advertisement No. 2 of 1992 (Annexure 4) for recruitment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher and the desirous candidates were asked to submit their application in between 7.8.1992 to 5.9.1992. However, before any recruitment could take place in pursuance of the resolution dated 23.5.1984 or Advertisement No. 2 of 1992, the State Government in the Department of Welfare came out with resolution dated 13th of November, 1992 which, inter alia, provided for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teachers by direct recruitment and by promotion. The said resolution provided that 50% posts shall be filled up by direct recruitment whereas 50% shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the Intermediate Trained and Matric Trained Teachers, having experience of three years and eight years respectively. The said resolution provided that 50% posts shall be filled up by direct recruitment whereas 50% shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the Intermediate Trained and Matric Trained Teachers, having experience of three years and eight years respectively. In pursuance of the said decision, 277 persons have been appointed as direct recruit whereas 244 persons have been promoted in the year 1994, which included the petitioner. 5. It seems that the petitioner filed application for placing him higher in the gradation list, inter alia, contending that he ought to have been promoted in the Graduate Trained Scale in the year 1986, which was registered as CWJC No. 8907 of 1996 (Bijay Prakash Gupta vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.). This Court by order dated 27.4.1998 (Annexure 8) disposed of the writ application giving liberty to the petitioner to represent his case before the Director of Welfare Department, who in turn was directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within the stipulated time. Petitioner in the light of the liberty given by this Court, filed representation, inter alia, claiming for grant of Graduate Trained Scale from the year 1986 and for correction of his position in the gradation list. The Director Welfare by the impugned order dated 7.9.1999 (Annexure 9) rejected his prayer. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this application. 6. Mrs. Mahashweta Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the respondents having taken the decision as contained in letter dated 23.5.1984 (Annexure 1) to fill up the posts of Graduate Trained Teacher from the Intermediate/ Matric Trained Teachers and, in fact, prepared a panel and sought its approval by the Director Welfare, ought to have completed the process of selection and promoted the petitioner as Graduate Trained Teacher in the year 1986 itself. She contends that once the selection process had started when the decision of the State Government as provided in its letter dated 23.5.1984 was in vogue and, in fact, the panel having been prepared, the respondents were bound to complete the process of selection as provided in the said letter. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jageshwar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jageshwar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [1999 BLJ(2) 495] and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 7 of the judgment : "It is well settled that if process of appointment has started under a particular rule for filling up a vacant post, the same has to be concluded in accordance with the said rule and the subsequent rule or statutory provision will not affect the process commenced under the rule, then in existence, unless provision is made in subsequent law either expressly or by necessary implication, taking away existing rights. In the present case, no rule could be pointed out to us to show that there is any statutory provision whereby process of appointment, which had already commenced in the year 1977, is required to be completed in accordance with any statutory provision." 7. Yet another decision on which she has placed reliance is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti vs. Karnataka Public Service Cornmission ( AIR 1990 SC 1233 ) and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 11 of the said judgment: "There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states the 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 has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallizes on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules." 8. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules." 8. Having given my consideration to the submission advanced by Mrs. Chatterjee, I do not find any substance in the same and the authority relied on, are clearly distinguishable. Here in the present case, recruitment process although initiated when the decision as contained memo dated 23.5.1984 (Annexure 1), providing for filling of the post of the Graduate Trained Teachers from the IA and Matric Trained Teachers was in vogue, but it is nobodys case that, in fact, any appointment was made. In my opinion when recruitment process if initiated in accordance with a particular rule, it has to be completed in accordance with the said rule, unless, the recruitment rule is amended with retrospective effect either directly or by necessary implication. Here in the present case, the recruitment process was abandoned in the midst itself. Hence, the principle pressed into service by Mrs. Chatterjee has no application at all. 9. For the same reason, the decision of this Court in the case of Jageshwar Prasad and of the Supreme Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti {supra) are distinguishable. 10. The view which I have taken find support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Jaiswal vs. Debi Mukherjee ( AIR 1992 SC 749 ) wherein after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti (supra) relied on by Mrs. Chatterjee, it has been observed as follows: "In support of the first contention, strong reliance was placed on the decision of this court in N.T. Devin Katti vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission. (1990)3 SCC 157 : ( AIR 1990 SC 1233 ). In that case this Court observed that a candidate who is eligible and otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms of the advertisement acquires a vested right of being considered for selection in accordance with the rules as they existed at the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature. While making these observations, it was made clear that a candidate on making an application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection or of appointment to the post in question." 11. In view of the decision of this Court dated 25th of October, 2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1503 of 1991 and analogous cases, this point need not detain me further. Same grievance raised in the said case, has been negatived by this Court which would evident from the following paragraph of the said judgment: "Shri Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the decision dated 23.5.1984 (supra), Annexure 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 1503/91, stipulated promotion of the Intermedi-ate/Matric Trained Teachers to the Graduate Trained Scale on the basis of seniority; only in case of non-availability of the Intermediate/Matric Trained Teachers appointment could be made from open market. The case of the petitioner, and others, was indeed considered and the list was sent to the Director after interview etc. Meanwhile the government took another policy decision to the detriment of the petitioners right. He urged that promotional avenues of the petitioner could not be impaired by changing the criteria after the process of promotion had commenced. In this regard he placed reliance on P. Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka, (1990)1 SCC 411 and N.T. Devin Katti and Ors. vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors. (1990)3 SCC 157 . In the above premises, no error can be found with the procedure/mode of promotion to the graduate trained scale. The contention that the resolution dated 13.11.92 impaired the right of the petitioner for his promotion to the Graduate Trained Scale therefore does not have any substance." 12. Mrs. Chatterjee then contends that this Court while disposing of the writ application filed by the petitioner earlier, that is, C.W.J.C. No. 8907 of 1996 (Annexure 8) had given direction to consider the grievance of the petitioner in regard to his seniority, but the Director Welfare while passing the impugned order had not at all adverted to that. I have pointly asked Mrs. I have pointly asked Mrs. Chatterjee in regard to the foundational fact touching the said issue, but she is not in a position to draw my attention to any such averment. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to go into this grievance of the petitioner in the present application. However, if the petitioner is so advised, he may make such grievance before the Director of Welfare, who will consider his grievance in accordance with law. 13. Needless to state that in the said exercise, the Director of Welfare shall not go into the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Graduate Trained Teacher since 1986. It is further needless to state that in case such a representation is filed the Director of Welfare shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within three months from the date of its filing. 14. In the result I do not find any merit in the application and is dismissed accordingly with the direction aforesaid. No cost.