JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to consider the petitioners candidature for regular appointment, who had been working on daily wage basis for several years. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction on the respondents to fill up the vacant sanctioned post in terms of the said advertisement. 2. Petitioners case is that the Petitioner No. 1 was engaged on daily wage basis as driver on 29th August, 1998. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were similarly engaged on daily wage basis on 1st December, 2001. Since the date of their engagement, they have been continuously working. 3. An advertisement, being Advertisement No. 04-05/2001, was issued for appointment on different posts including the post of driver. The prescribed qualification for the post of driver was Class VIII pass and other eligibility was driving license. 4. The petitioners, who possessed the required educational qualification and driving license and eligibility, applied for the post of driver through Employment Exchange with the requisite papers. The petitioners were found suitable and their names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange. 5. Earlier six sanctioned posts of driver were vacant and after retirement of one Jamma Mahto, altogether seven sanctioned posts of driver became vacant. After selection and completion of the formalities, the petitioners should have been appointed on the vacant sanctioned post, but till date appointment letter has not been issued. 6. It has been stated that the petitioners have been working continuously on their posts without any break since the date of their engagement. 7. Same apathetic attitude was adopted by the respondents with regard to appointment of 36 posts of Class IV. Aggrieved persons had preferred writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 633 of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 10 th April, 2002 directing the respondents to complete the process of selection within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. When the said direction was not complied with by the respondents, a proceeding for contempt was initiated in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 981 of 2002. During the pendency of the said case, the respondents cleared the roaster for appointment of the said person and the proceeding was dropped. But the roaster clearance was not given with regard to seven posts of driver and the same are still vacant. 8. Case (Civil) No. 981 of 2002. During the pendency of the said case, the respondents cleared the roaster for appointment of the said person and the proceeding was dropped. But the roaster clearance was not given with regard to seven posts of driver and the same are still vacant. 8. It has been submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 comes under the category of OBC, Petitioner No. 2 is of general category and Petitioner No. 3 is under the S.T. Category and they fulfilled all the required criteria for the post of driver. The petitioners made several representations before the concerned authority requesting them to issue appropriate order, but the same are not heeded upon and no order has been passed. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents contesting the petitioners claim. It has been stated, inter alia, that at present there are nine vacant posts of driver. The respondents had initiated the process for appointment by calling the petitioners and others for test and interview on 28 th July, 2005, but due to certain unavoidable circumstance, the interview was postponed by Letter No. 997 dated 26 th July, 2005. It has been stated that the advertisement for the past year was made in the year 2001 and there was a long gap and as such, fresh instruction was sought from the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand by Letter No. 2 dated 17 th January, 2007. The Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasha Department, in reply, directed to proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in Notification No. 742 dated 15 th February, 2007, which lays down the eligibility and procedure for appointment of driver. The post of driver has been declared as Class-III and the essential qualification has also been enhanced from Class VIII pass to Matriculation. It has also been provided that if a daily wage earner is eligible otherwise he shall be given weightage. The process of appointment of driver and educational qualification since been changed, a fresh roster has been approved by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Ranhi by his Letter No. 907 dated 13 th May, 2005. The petitioners under the changed provision are not eligible for the post. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the posts are still vacant and the same have not been filled up. The petitioners under the changed provision are not eligible for the post. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the posts are still vacant and the same have not been filled up. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are still working as driver on daily wage basis. They had applied for the post of driver in terms of Advertisement No. 04-05/2001. They were found eligible and their names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange. Panel was prepared and interview letters were also issued to them. When the process of the appointment was initiated, the minimum qualification for the post of driver was Class VIII pass. The petitioners were having required minimum qualification and they were eligible for the post. They cannot be now held to be disqualified or not eligible on the ground of coming into existence of new rule in the meanwhile with effect from 15 th February, 2007. The said rule cannot be applied retrospectively. The petitioners appointments are to be considered on the basis of the rule, which was applicable on the date when the process of appointment was initiated. New rule does not provide for its application with retrospective effect. Once the selection process is started, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed to the prejudice to the petitioners. 11. Learned Counsel referred to relied up on the decisions of the Supreme Court in P.D. Aggarwal, Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. , Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna and Ors. and also the decision of this Court in Bijay Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Ranchi University, Ranchi and Ors. ( 2004 (2) JCR 127 (Jhr). 12. Learned J.C. to G.P.II, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the preparation of panel does not give any right to the candidates and that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief on the ground of initiation of process of appointment and preparation of panel. It has further been submitted that even the life of a panel is normally one year, which has also been now expired and in the meanwhile a new rule has been framed and eligibility criteria has been changed. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Jagdish Chopra . 13. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Jagdish Chopra . 13. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, I find that the petitioners were earlier engaged as driver on daily wage basis and they had taken part in the selection process in view of Advertisement No. 04-05/2001. Admittedly, the petitioners had eligibility and qualification, as then required, for the post of driver. Their names were recommended by the Employment Exchange, interview letters were issued and on the basis of selection, panel was prepared. 14. It is pertinent to mention that by the said advertisement, applications were invited for appointment on Class IV post as well as the post of driver. By letter dated 3 rd October, 2003, roster was also approved by the concerned authority Some of the persons, who had applied for Class IV post, had moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 633 of 2002, which was disposed of by order dated 10 th April, 2002 directing the respondents to complete the process of selection within six months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order. The said order was not confined only to the Class IV employees. However, the respondents while completed the process of appointment with regard to class IV post the same was not done with regard to the appointment of drivers for which the petitioners had applied and were selected. In the meanwhile, new rule came into existence with effect from 15 th February, 2007, whereby the minimum qualification for the post of driver is now made Matriculate in place of Class VIII Class. The said rule has no been made effective retrospectively, but the respondents are now contesting the petitioners claim on the ground that the petitioner have no required minimum qualification of Matriculation and the are not eligible for the post in view of the amended rule. The petitioners, who were eligible under the provision of the earlier rule are now being deprived of their right on the said plea of coming into force of the new rule after near completion of selection process initiated under the provisions of then existing rule. 15. The petitioners, who were eligible under the provision of the earlier rule are now being deprived of their right on the said plea of coming into force of the new rule after near completion of selection process initiated under the provisions of then existing rule. 15. In Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. In P.D. Aggarwal and Ors. (Supra), the Supreme Court has ruled that the employee after being selected in accordance with the service rules before the amended rule, his right cannot be taken away by giving retrospective effect to the subsequently amended rule. In Tulsi Das and Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. , it has been held that the rights acquired by employees are legally protected rights and cannot be withdrawn even by the Legislature with retrospective effect. The same view has also been taken by this Court in Bijay Kumar Sharmas case (Supra). 16. The petitioners were found eligible according to the rule, as then existed, and they cannot be deprived of their right on the plea of coming into force of the new rule. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the preparation of a panel does not create any right and as such, the new rule cannot be said to have taken away any right of the petitioners. 17. In the instant case, the petitioners have been working as daily wagers. The preference was to be given to the persons, who have been already working. The petitioners in due selection process were found competent and were selected. The cumulative effect of the same gives a valuable right to the petitioners to have preference in appointment. That valuable right cannot be taken away and the petitioners cannot be deprived of consideration for the appointment on the plea of different provision under the amended rule. Denial of the petitioner appointment on the said ground amounts to snatching away the valuable rights on the basis of the Rule subsequently came in existence with effect from 15 th February, 2007. The said provision affecting the petitioners adversely cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. Denial of the petitioner appointment on the said ground amounts to snatching away the valuable rights on the basis of the Rule subsequently came in existence with effect from 15 th February, 2007. The said provision affecting the petitioners adversely cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. Denial of the petitioners appointments that ground is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The amended rule, which has been made applicable with retrospective effect, cannot be applied in the process of the appointment, which was started and almost concluded for before coming into existence of the amended rule. 18. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash case (Supra) as well as in State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Supra) do not go to support the respondents stand. In Shankarsan Dashs case (Supra), it has been held that the candidates on selection do no acquire any right to the post. Unless relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. It has been also observed that the State, however, has no license of acting in an arbitrary manner. In the instant case, the respondents have not taken the stand that they have taker decision not to fill up the vacancy, rather their stand is that the petitioners, who have been selected for the post, have no minimum educational qualification, in view of the new rule, which came into existence with effect from 15 th February, 2007. 19. In the Staff of Rajasthan and Ors. (Supra), it has been held that in absence of any rule, ordinary period of validity of select list should be one year and even the selected candidates should not have legal right to appointment. The said legal position is crystal clear and there is no dispute regarding the same. However, as provided by Article 16 of the Constitution of India, a candidate has right to be considered for appointment. In the instant case, that right of consideration is being denied on extraneous ground, which was not in existence when the petitioners had applied and were selected for the post. The decision in State of Rajasthan and Ors. However, as provided by Article 16 of the Constitution of India, a candidate has right to be considered for appointment. In the instant case, that right of consideration is being denied on extraneous ground, which was not in existence when the petitioners had applied and were selected for the post. The decision in State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Supra) has been rendered in different context and both the decisions/rulings of the Supreme Court referred to and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the instant case and the same are of no help to the respondents. 20. In view of the above discussions, it is held that the denial of the petitioners appointment on the ground of enhancement of minimum education qualification for the post in the new rule, which came into existence much after the petitioners selection for the post is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unjust. The provision of the subsequently amended rule cannot be applied to the petitioners by giving retrospective effect to the rule. The respondents cannot withhold the process of appointment on the said ground, if the petitioners are otherwise entitled for the appointment after their due selection in the aforesaid process. The respondents are, thus, directed to issue appropriate order in he said terms within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.