Judgment :- 1. The petitioners/institutions were permitted to fill up the vacancies of the post of Lecturers caused in the respective colleges on the basis of minimum qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission (for short UGC). When the process of election was in progress and the date of interview was fixed, the same came to be postponed in view of Loksabha Elections. When the Management approached respondent No.2 after the completion of Loksabha elections praying permission to fix new date for interview, respondent No.2 directed the petitioners to redo the entire selection process by calling for applications afresh in view of the coming into force of University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment), Regulation, 2009 (for short ‘the Regulations’). The endorsement Annexure-AH dated 02.11.2009 by which such a direction is issued in question in this writ petition. 2. The relevant rule relating to the Regulations prior to the amendment reads thus: “NET shall remain compulsory requirement for appointment of Lecturer even for those with post graduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph.D. Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG level teaching the candidates having M.Phil, degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only.” The amendment was notified on 01.06.2009 which was gazetted in the Official Gazette on 11.07.2009. Copy of the amendment is produced at Annexure-1 along with the statement of objections by the State Government. The same reveals that the amendment will come into force from the date of publication in the Gazeete of India. Since the amendment was gazetted on 11.07.2009, the amendment came effect on 11.07.2009. After the amendment, the provision relating to minimum qualification reads thus: “NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of lecturers in University/Colleges/Institutions. The same reveals that the amendment will come into force from the date of publication in the Gazeete of India. Since the amendment was gazetted on 11.07.2009, the amendment came effect on 11.07.2009. After the amendment, the provision relating to minimum qualification reads thus: “NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of lecturers in University/Colleges/Institutions. Provided, however, that candidates, who are or have been awarded Ph.D. degree in compliance of the “University Grants Commission “minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D. Degree), Regulation, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.” From the above, it is clear that prior to amendment, the candidates having M.Phil, degree need not have to complete NET/SLET for getting himself qualified for applying to the post of Lecturer in an under-graduate college;, whereas after the amendment, NET/SLET is the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment of the Lecturers in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. However, the candidates who have been awarded Ph.D. are exempted from the requirement of minimum eligibility of NET/SLET. 3. The petitioners-colleges had invited applications to certain posts, which fell vacant, by publishing notifications in Kannada and English daily newspapers after obtaining due permission from the respondents. It is needless to observe that the State had given permission to the petitioners to proceed with the selection process of the candidates pursuant to the then existing Rules of UGC. Accordingly, the applications were invited. Consequently, certain of the candidates applied to the posts. The date of interviews were also fixed with the consent of the respondents in the month of April, 2010. However, during the interregnum, elections to the Lok Sabha were announced and consequently the selection process could not be proceeded with and interviews were not conducted. After the completion of Lok Sabha elections, the petitioner-institutions sought permission of the respondents again to proceed with the interviews i.e., to continue the selection process from where it had stopped. At that point of time, the impugned endorsement as per Annexure-AH dated 02.11.2009 is issued by the State Government directing the petitioners to drop the on going selection process in view of the amendment to the Regulations. 4. The direction issued by the State Government to apply the amended Regulations to the on-going selection process appears to be unreasonable. At that point of time, the impugned endorsement as per Annexure-AH dated 02.11.2009 is issued by the State Government directing the petitioners to drop the on going selection process in view of the amendment to the Regulations. 4. The direction issued by the State Government to apply the amended Regulations to the on-going selection process appears to be unreasonable. It is not in dispute that the applications are called for based on the then prevalent Regulations fixing the minimum qualification as fixed by UGC. The applications were called for after taking approval of the State Government. Even the interviews were fixed after taking consent of the State Government. However, the interviews could not be conducted in view of intervening Lok Sabha elections. If the Lok Sabha elections were not to be declared, the selection process would have been over then and then only on the basis of the minimum qualification fixed by UGC prior to amendment of the Regulations. Since the Lok Sabha elections intervened, selection process was postponed. During the interregnum, the Regulations relating to minimum qualification were amended and NET/SLET was made minimum eligibility condition for recruitment of undergraduate level teaching staff, which was not there prior to the amendment. In view of such amendment, the State Government did not permit the petitioners to go ahead with the selection process which was half way through. The amended Rules have prospective effect. They are not made retroactive. The Rules which are prospective in nature cannot take away the right of the candidates who were not holding NET/SLET as on the date of making the applications as well as on the date of scrutiny of the applications by the management and the Government. They were qualified for selection and appointment as per the Rules then existed. In fact as aforementioned, the entire selection in the normal course would have been finalized much before coming into force of the amendment Rules but for the intervention of the Loksabha elections. If there had not been elections, the eligible candidates would have been appointed much before the amendment of the Rules. Since the process of selection had commenced and could not be completed on account of the intervention of loksabha elections, the right of such candidates to get themselves selected and appointed could not be defeated by subsequent amendment of Rules/Regulations. If there had not been elections, the eligible candidates would have been appointed much before the amendment of the Rules. Since the process of selection had commenced and could not be completed on account of the intervention of loksabha elections, the right of such candidates to get themselves selected and appointed could not be defeated by subsequent amendment of Rules/Regulations. It is well settled Rules of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication is made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the amended Rule showing the intention to affect the existing Rules, the Rule must be held to be prospective. The amended Rule does not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect. On the other hand, the amended Regulations clearly reveal that amendment would come into force on the date of publication in the official gazette. Thus, the amended Rule could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who are eligible to be considered for selection and appointment as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before the amendment. Moreover, construction of amending Rules should reasonably be made to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter. (See the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Computer Sc.B.Ed. G.T.Welfare, society Vs. Higher Sec.Scl.Computer Tech. Assn. and Others (AIR 2010 SCW 2825) and P. Mahendran Vs. State of Karnataka ( AIR 1990 SC 405 ). 5. In view of the above, the endorsement Annexure-AH dated 02.11.2009 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order is made: i) The endorsement Annexure-AH dated 02.11.2009 bearing No.ED 174 UPC 2009 stands quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners. ii) Respondent No.1 is directed to permit the petitioners-institutions to proceed with the process of selection to the post of Lecturers/Physical Instructors from the stage at which it was stopped, on the basis of qualifications prescribed in the notification inviting applications issued by the petitioners. iii) Petitions are allowed. Smt. Savitha N. Patil, HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.