Judgment ( 1. ) AGGRIEVED of Clause 3 (b) of the advertisement published in Employment News dated 15-21. 9. 2007 under Notification No. 2/2007, Railway protection Force, Ministry of Railway, rendering the petitioner over age to participate in the selection procedure of Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force, the petitioner has approached this Court vide this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to: (i) Correct the irregularity shown in the advertisement; (ii) Accept the application of the petitioner allowing him to participate in selection procedure. ( 2. ) THE facts briefly are that the petitioner is a Constable in the Railway protection Force appointed on 16. 11. 2001. The date of birth of the petitioner is 25. 7. 1977. That, an advertisement for recruitment of Sub-Inspector was published in Rojgar Samachar dated 15-21. 9. 2007, whereunder Clause 3 (b) stipulated that, the candidate as on 1. 1. 2008 should not be less than 20 years and not more than 25 years. Since the petitioner is born on 25. 7. 1977, he was over age because even with the relaxation of 5 years stipulated under Clause 3 (iii) of the advertisement he was not eligible and therefore the petitioner could not participate in the selection. ( 3. ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the procedure regarding recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in RPF/rps are governed by Standing Order 79 (Revised)dated 27. 7. 2007 (Annexure P/2); wherein, under Clause 2 (b) the eligibility regarding age stipulates that the candidate should not be less than 20 years and not more than 25 years as on 1st January of the year in case the vacancies are advertised in the first half of the year or as on 1st July of the year if the vacancies are advertised in the second half of the year. ( 4. ) IT is urged that since the vacancies were advertised in the second half of the year and the petitioner had put in more than 3 years regular service, he was eligible to participate in the recruitment process because he was less than 30 years as on 1. 7. 2007, but for the action of respondents in stipulating the cut off date as 1. 1. 2008 for the vacancies advertised in second half of 2007. ( 5. 7. 2007, but for the action of respondents in stipulating the cut off date as 1. 1. 2008 for the vacancies advertised in second half of 2007. ( 5. ) IT is further contended that modification in Clause 2 (b) of Order 79 (Revised)dated 27. 7. 2007 was effected vide Railway Board letter No. 88-Sec (E)/rc-3/6 (IRSI) dated 4:10. 2007 i. e. much after the advertisement dated 15-20. 9. 2007, and was thus not applicable retrospectively for a recruitment process already initiated. It is urged that, since the modification in procedure regarding recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in RPF/rpsf vide 4. 10. 2007 was prospective, the same ought not to have been made applicable for recruitment undertaken in September, 2007. The relief is accordingly sought for, to allow him to participate in the selection and to grant such relief as deemed fit and proper. ( 6. ) THE respondents on their turn deny any relief to be granted to the petitioner. It is contended inter -alia that, the decision regarding reckoning of age as 1. 1. 2008 was taken much prior to issuance of advertisement that is on 31. 8. 2007. In pursuance whereof, the Chairman, Central Recruitment Committee, issued instructions on 12. 9. 2007 to respective Chairman, Zonal Recruitment Committee, wherein the advertisement was issued on 15-20. 9. 2007. It is accordingly urged that there is no anomaly in the advertisement as would warrant any interference. ( 7. ) THE question which crops up for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in stipulating the modified out off date regarding the age for determining the eligibility of a candidate. ( 8. ) CLAUSE 2 (b) of Standing Order No. 79 (Revised) dated 27. 7. 2007 stipulated the eligibility regarding age in the following terms: "age: Not less than 20 and not more than 25 years as on 1st january of the year in case the vacancies are advertised in the first half of the year or as on 1st July of the year if the vacancies are advertised in the second half of the year. Relaxation in upper age limit will be admissible to SC, ST, OBC, Ex-servicemen and central Government Employees as per extant instructions of the central Government. " ( 9. ) THE aforesaid Clause was modified vide Railway Board circular No. 88-Sec (E)/rc-3/6 (IRSI) dated 4. 10. Relaxation in upper age limit will be admissible to SC, ST, OBC, Ex-servicemen and central Government Employees as per extant instructions of the central Government. " ( 9. ) THE aforesaid Clause was modified vide Railway Board circular No. 88-Sec (E)/rc-3/6 (IRSI) dated 4. 10. 2007 in the following terms: "age:not less than 20 years and not more than 25 years as on 1st July of the year for those posts for which notifications are issued between January to June and 1st January of next year for those posts for which notifications are issued between July and December. " ( 10. ) THIS modification was after the approval of DG/rpf and has a reference to letter dated 31. 8. 2007. This letter i. e. No. 88-Sec (E)/rc-3/6 (IRSI) dated 31. 8. 2007 which is brought on record as Annexure P4 proposing various modifications to Standing Order 79 and the modification proposed by replacing existing paragraph regarding relaxation in upper age limit. ( 11. ) THUS the decision for modification to Standing Order 79 was already taken before it was incorporated in Standing Order 79. ( 12. ) IN Jai Singh Dalai and Others Vs. State of Haryana and another 1993 Supp (2) SCC 600, it has been observed in para 7 of the Judgment: "thus, the HPSC was still in the process of selecting candidates and had yet not completed and finalised the select list nor had it forwarded the same to the State government for implementation. The candidates, therefore, did not have any right to appointment. There was, therefore, no question of the High court granting a mandamus or any other writ of the type sought by the appellants. The law. in this behalf appears to be well settled. In the State of haryana v. Sub ash. Chander Marwaha this court held that the mere fact that certain candidates were selected for appointment to vacancies pursuant to an advertisement did not confer any right to be appointed to the post in question to entitle the selectees to a writ of mandamus or any other writ compelling the authority to make the appointment. " ( 13. ) IN Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Chanan Ram and another (1998) 4 SCC 202 . "17. " ( 13. ) IN Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Chanan Ram and another (1998) 4 SCC 202 . "17. In the case of State of M. P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav (1994) 6 SCC 151 a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ. , had to consider the question whether the State could change a qualification for the recruitment during the process of recruitment which had not resulted into any final decision in favour of any candidate. In paragraph 5 of the Report in this connection it was observed that it is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualification for recruitment. In the case before the Court pursuant to the amended Rules, the Government had withdrawn the earlier notification and wanted to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It was held that this was not the case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered according to the rules then in vogue. The amended rules had only prospective operation. The Government was entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State was entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules. In the case of J and K Public Service commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan (1994) 2 SCC 630 : (1994 air SCW 1701) another Division Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and N. R Singh, JJ. considered the question of interception of recruitment process earlier undertaken by the recruiting agency in this connection it was observed that the process of selection against existing and anticipated vacancies does not create any right to be appointed to the post which can be enforced by a mandamus. " ( 14. ) IN S. Prakash and another Vs. K. M. Kurian and others (1999) 5 SCC 624 , it was held in para 20 : "20. " ( 14. ) IN S. Prakash and another Vs. K. M. Kurian and others (1999) 5 SCC 624 , it was held in para 20 : "20. From the aforesaid G. O. , it is clear that during the selection process, Government had accepted the advice of the Public Service commission that the changes in the qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment introduced after the issue of notification for selection to the post by the Public service Commission will be given effect to in future selections only with an exception as mentioned therein. As stated earlier, in the present case selection process was not over till the list of selected candidates was published by the Public Service commission on 13th May, 1995 and the impugned Note (3) does not change qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment. It only fills up the lacuna or clarifies the ambiguity prevailing for computation of ratio or percentage for appointment by direct recruitment and by transfer. Because of the aforesaid factual position, in our view, it is not necessary to discuss judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, we would refer to one decision rendered by this Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram (1998)4 SCC 202 wherein after considering the decision in the P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1998) Supp SCC 740, this Court held that "if the recruitment rules underwent amendment prior to actual filling up of the advertised posts, the amended rules would apply. " The Court also referred to a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Jai Singh Dalai v. State of Haryana, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 600 wherein it has been held that when the special process of recruitment had not been finalised and culminated into select list, the candidate did not have any right to appointment and that recruitment process could be stopped by the Government at any time before a candidate has been appointed and as the candidate has no vested right to get the process completed except that the Government could be required to justify its action on the touchstone of Art. 14. " ( 15. ) IN A. Manoharan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (2008) 3 SCC 641 para 22:- "22. " ( 15. ) IN A. Manoharan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (2008) 3 SCC 641 para 22:- "22. The legal principle that an administrative act must yield to a statue is no longer res integra. Once a regulation has been framed, in terms of the provisions of the General Clauses Act, the same must be amended in accordance with the procedures laid down under the principal enactment. Even assuming that the Central government had the jurisdiction to direct the authority to amend the Regulations, it was required to be carried out in accordance with law, and, thus all requisite procedures laid down therefore were required to be fulfilled. (See Sant Ram Sharma v. State of rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910 , DDA v. Joginder S. Monga (2004)2 SCC 297 , Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India (2006) 12 SCC 753, Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of kerala (2006) 4 SCC 327 and State of Kerala v. Unni (2007) 2 SCC 365 )" ( 16. ) IN the case at hand, as noted supra, the Standing Order No. 79 (Revised)dated 27. 7. 2007 was modified vide Railway Circular No. 88-Sec (E)/rc-3/6 (IRSI)dated 4. 10. 2007 whereby the eligibility regarding age was modified to the extent that "the candidate should not be less than 20 years and not more than 25 years as on 1st July of the year for those posts for which notifications are issued between january to June and 1st of January of next year for those posts for which notifications are issued between July and December". The said modification was in pursuance to decision dated 31. 7. 2007 which was taken before the issuance of advertisement dated 15-21. 9. 2007 in respect of selection, which was to be held after 5. 11. 2007 and the petitioner was admittedly over age as per stipulations contained in the advertisement. ( 17. ) THERE being no accrual of the right in favour of the petitioner, the contention that, the change of cut-off date for the purpose of age has prejudicially effected the chance of the petitioner to participate in the selection for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force, is of no consequence; because the entitlement of a person is only for consideration and the same is on the basis of the rules in vogue. ( 18. ( 18. ) SINCE, the respondents have declared the cut-off date in the advertisement dated 15-21. 9. 2007 and the same being on the basis of the deliberations by the respondents, which subsequently were incorporated in the Standing Order 79 (Revised), this Court finds no substance in the challenge put forth by the petitioner. ( 19. ) IN view of the above, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.