JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners assailing constitutionality of the amendment made in the Rules called as Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short "the Rules of 1971"). 2. Initially, the rules of 1971 were amended by way of Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2008 (for short "the Amendment Rules, 2008") notified on 18.7.2008 by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel, thereby amending the Schedule-I, existing entries at Serial No.8(a) and entries thereto occurring under the heading "Section F-General Teacher" of Schedule-I. By way of amendment, Senior Teachers have been categorized in six categories i.e. (1) Hindi, (2) English, (3) Maths, (4) Science, (5) Third Language and (6) Social Science. For the said post, the qualifications were prescribed in Column 4 to be graduate or equivalent examination with the concerned subject and one more subject taught in class IX and X as optional subjects. As there were no optional subjects in Class IX & X and only compulsory subjects are taught, to correct the provision with respect to Senior Teacher, another amendment was made retrospectively w.e.f. 18.7.2008 by way of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2010 (for short "the Amendment Rules, 2010") notified on 16.4.2010. The amendment which has been made in the Schedule 8(a) (i-b) for Science Teacher clarifies that the qualification is to be graduate or equivalent examination with Zoology, Botany and Chemistry as optional subjects for the post mentioned at Serial Number 4 in Column Number 2. Thus, for the post of Senior Teacher, the qualification of graduate or equivalent examination with subjects Zoology, Botany and Chemistry has been prescribed. The amendment made in the Schedule with respect to the Senior Teacher of Science as amended by the Amendment Rules, 2010 has been questioned in the writ applications. 3. Facts in short are that the Rules of 1971 were amended w.e.f. 18.7.2008 by the Amendment Rules of 2008. An advertisement was issued by respondent No.2-RPSC inviting applications for the post of Senior Teacher of Science on 13.8.2008. 4. After amending the Rules of 1971 by way of the Amendment Rules, 2010 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.7.2008 vide notification dated 16.4.2010, a corrigendum to advertisement has been issued clarifying the qualifications as amended in 2010, which are necessary for the post of Senior Teacher of Science to be Graduate or equivalent examination with subjects of Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. 4. After amending the Rules of 1971 by way of the Amendment Rules, 2010 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.7.2008 vide notification dated 16.4.2010, a corrigendum to advertisement has been issued clarifying the qualifications as amended in 2010, which are necessary for the post of Senior Teacher of Science to be Graduate or equivalent examination with subjects of Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. The Examination has been held in May, 2011. It is submitted that part of the result has not been published due to interim stay granted by this Court in some of the matters and appointments have not been made so far. 5. The petitioners are holding qualification of graduate with the subject of four groups; (1) Geology, Chemistry, Zoology, (2) Chemistry, Botany, Geology, (3) Chemistry, Zoology, Bio-Technology and (4) Physics, Chemistry, Geology. Physics/Biotechnology is one of the subject component of the Science subject taught in Class IX and X. The petitioners are not having qualification of graduate in the group of subjects specified in the Amendment Rules, 2010 i.e. Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. They have questioned the validity of amendment so made on the ground that once process of selection has been initiated, it has to be completed under the Rules which were in vogue at the time when advertisement was issued. They have also submitted that the amendment to the rules made in 2010 is ultra vires, inasmuch as subjects of Physics and Bio-technology have not been taken care of in the General Subject of Science, while prescribing the qualification for Senior Teacher of graduation or equivalent with subjects Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. They have also submitted that amendment cannot be given retrospective effect as the corrigendum to the advertisement was issued mentioning that the applicants who had submitted their forms, need not to fill the forms afresh. 6. It is contended in the reply by respondents No.1 & 2 that amendment has been effected in order to clarify the error crept in the amendment made in 2008, as such, examination was not held and before examination was held, amendment was made in 2010 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.7.2008, whereas advertisement was issued on 13.8.2008. The corrigendum to advertisement has been issued on 4.8.2010 clarifying the academic qualifications, which are necessary for the post of Senior Teacher of Science incorporated by the Amendment Rules, 2008 & 2010, in the recruitment Rules of 1971. The corrigendum to advertisement has been issued on 4.8.2010 clarifying the academic qualifications, which are necessary for the post of Senior Teacher of Science incorporated by the Amendment Rules, 2008 & 2010, in the recruitment Rules of 1971. The General Subjects of Science in class IX and X consists of Zoology, Botany, Chemistry and physics. To select candidates with maximum group of subjects, amendment has been incorporated. It is further contended in the reply that earlier, the amendment made in the year 2008 with respect to the optional subjects in Class IX & X was meaningless and did not carry any logic because after implementation of the new Education Policy, 1986, all the subjects are taught as compulsory in Class IX & X and none of the subject is taught as optional subject. Subject material of the subjects of Biology, Chemistry and Botany are mainly included in the course prescribed for Class IX and X, therefore, knowledge of these three subjects are necessary for teaching the Science subjects as per syllabus. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted that once the advertisement was issued in the year 2008 and as per that, the petitioners were qualified, it was incumbent upon the respondents to complete the process under the rules, which were prevailing in the year 2008 at the time when the advertisement was issued. The amendment could not have been made with the retrospective effect. The amendment incorporated in the Rules of 1971 is arbitrary as well as the corrigendum to advertisement which has been issued on 4.8.2010 deserves to be struck down. According to the petitioners, the action is illegal and arbitrary; firstly, for the reason that retrospective effect could not have been given to such an amendment and the process ought to have been completed under the rules of 1971, which were amended in 2008 in pursuance of which advertisement dated 13.8.2008 had been issued. Secondly, the respondents have not taken care of subject of Physics and Bio-technology, which also form part of syllabus of Class IX and X. They have also relied upon certain decisions, which are to be referred later. Shri J.P.Joshi, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-RPSC and Shri G.R.Kalla, Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the State have submitted that before holding of the examination, corrigendum has been issued and rules have been amended retrospectively w.e.f. 18.7.2008. Shri J.P.Joshi, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-RPSC and Shri G.R.Kalla, Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the State have submitted that before holding of the examination, corrigendum has been issued and rules have been amended retrospectively w.e.f. 18.7.2008. The action is legally permissible. In the subject of Science, main subjects are Zoology, Botany, Chemistry; and Physics. The respondent is requiring a candidate graduate or equivalent in the aforesaid subjects of Zoology, Botany, Chemistry. They have experience of Physics also of class XI & XII and Bio-technology is also covered in the subject of Zoology and Botany at the level of Class XI and XII. Thus, group of subjects, which have been prescribed in academic qualification for the purpose of eligibility is to cover maximum spectrum of subjects taught in Class IX & X in subject of Science. The provision cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. Hence, no case for interference is made out in the writ applications.8-9. Before dilating upon the submissions made at bar, we deem it appropriate to note the legislative provision and changes brought with respect to the qualification mentioned in the Schedule at Serial No.8(a) for Senior Teacher. Prior to amendment made in the year 2008 for the post of Senior Teacher, the provision in the Rules of 1971 was as under:- Schedule S.No. Name of the posts Sources of recruitment with percentage Minimum qualification and experience for direct recruitment Post or the posts from which promotion is to be made Qualification & experience required for promotion Committee for direct recruitment to the post not within the purview of Rajasthan Public Service Commission and for promotion Seniority Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 8.(a) {Senior Teacher] [ ] Enforcement Assistants 50% by direct recruitment & 50% by promotion Graduate or equivalent Examination with atleast two subjects taught in Schools with Degree or Diploma in Education or Montessory 1. [Teacher] 2. Laboratory Assistants 3. Teacher s in Deaf, Dumb & Blind Schools Graduate or equivalent examination with atleast two subjects taught in schools with Degree or Diploma in Education or 1. Jr./Deputy Director of Education of the range concerned. 2. One District Education Officer to be nominated Range-wise 10. The amendment has been made in the Recruitment Rules, 1971 by way of the Amendment Rules, 2008. Jr./Deputy Director of Education of the range concerned. 2. One District Education Officer to be nominated Range-wise 10. The amendment has been made in the Recruitment Rules, 1971 by way of the Amendment Rules, 2008. Schedule has been amended to the following effects:-5.Amendment of schedule.-(1) The existing schedule appended to the said rules shall be numbered as "Schedule-I"(2) The existing S.No.8(a) and entries there to occurring under the heading "Section F-General Teacher" of schedule-I so numbered shall be substituted by the following namely:- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8(a) Senior Teacher 1.Hindi 2.English 3.Maths 4.Science 5. Third Language 6. Social Science 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion (a) For the posts at serial No.1 to 5 in column No.2 (i) Graduate or equivalent Examination with the concerned subject and one more subject taught in class IX and X as optional subjects and (ii) Degree or diploma in education recognised by Government of Rajasthan. (b) For posts at serial No.6 in column No.2- (i) Graduate or equivalent examination with at least two subjects out of the subjects-History, Geography, Economics, Political, Science, Sociology, Public Administration and Philosophy -as optional subjects and (ii) Degree or Diploma in education recognized by Government of Rajasthan 1. Teacher 2. Laboratory Assistant 3.Teacher in Deaf, Dumb and Blind School (a)For the posts at serial No.1 to 5 in column No.2- (i) Graduate or equivalent examination with the concerned subject and one more subject taught in class IX and X as optional subjects(ii) Degree or diploma in education recognised by Government of Rajasthan, and (iii) 5 years teaching experience on the post mentioned in column No.5 (b) For posts at serial No.6 in column No.2- (i) Graduate or equivalent examination with at least two subjects out of the subjects- History, Geography, Economics, Political Science, Sociology, Public Administration and Philosophy- as optional subjects(ii) Degree or Diploma in education recognized by Government of Rajasthan, and (iii) 5 years teaching experience on the post mentioned in column No.5 1.Joint / Deputy Director of Secondary Education of the range concerned. (member secretary) 2.Director Secondary Education or his nominee 3. Deputy Secretary Education Range wise (emphasis applied by us)11. Thereafter, rules have been amended with retrospective effect as provided under Rule 1(2) of the Amendment Rules, 2010. (member secretary) 2.Director Secondary Education or his nominee 3. Deputy Secretary Education Range wise (emphasis applied by us)11. Thereafter, rules have been amended with retrospective effect as provided under Rule 1(2) of the Amendment Rules, 2010. The Rule 1(2) of the Amendment Rules, 2010 provides that they shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 18.7.2008. Serial No.4 has been amended to the following effect by virtue of the Rule 3 of the Amendment Rules, 2010:- "Amendment of Schedule-L In Schedule-I appended to the said rules, under the heading Section F.General Teachers,- (i) the existing entries of item (i) of clause (a) occurring in column number 4 against serial number 8(a), shall be substituted by the following, namely.- "(i-a)Graduate or equivalent examination with concerned subject as optional subject for the post mentioned at serial number 1, 2 3 and 5 in column number 2,; (i-b) Graduate or equivalent examination with Zoology, Botany and Chemistry as optional subjects for the post mentioned at serial number 4 in column number 2, and" (ii) the existing item (i) of clause (a) occurring in column number 6 against serial number 8(a), shall be substituted by the following, namely:- "(i-a)Graduate or equivalent examination with concerned subject as optional subject for the post mentioned at serial number 1, 2 3 and 5 in column number 2,; (i-b) Graduate or equivalent examination with Zoology, Botany and Chemistry as optional subjects for the post mentioned at serial number 4 in column number 2" 12. It is apparent from the legislative changes that prior to 2008 in the recruitment Rules of 1971, there used to be one category of Senior Teacher as quoted above. However, w.e.f. 18.7.2008, Senior Teachers have been classified into six categories; (1) Hindi, (2) English, (3) Maths, (4) Science, (5) Third Language and (6) Social Science and the qualification w.e.f. 18.7.2008 for the post of Senior Teacher as mentioned in Column 4 of the Amendment Rules, 2008, quoted above, indicates that it is graduate or equivalent examination with the concerned subject and one more subject taught in class IX and X as "optional subjects". Amendment was made as there were no "optional subjects" in Class IX and X to clarify the position and to also clarify the subject qualification for graduate with respect to the subject of Science, which has been made by way of amendment made in Schedule-I at item No.8(a). Amendment was made as there were no "optional subjects" in Class IX and X to clarify the position and to also clarify the subject qualification for graduate with respect to the subject of Science, which has been made by way of amendment made in Schedule-I at item No.8(a). Now, the qualification which has been mentioned retrospectively effect from 18.7.2008 is graduate and equivalent examination of Zoology, Botany and Chemistry as optional subjects for the post mentioned at Serial No.4 in Column No.2 of Senior Teacher of Science.13. Column No.2 gives the categories of the Teachers and at serial No.4 is "Science Teacher". The Science Teacher to possess degree of graduate or equivalent examination with Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. Therefore, the petitioners are faced with the situation that at the time when they have submitted the form for want of aforesaid specification of subjects for Science Teacher, they were eligible. Now, by way of amendment made in 2010, they are not eligible for the post of Science Teacher as they are not graduate with subjects Zoology, Botany and Chemistry. Hence, they have come to the Court.14. We find that subject of General Science in Class IX and X is consist of mainly Zoology, Botany, Chemistry and Physics. The group of subjects, which are being offered at the graduation level are as follows:- " [k0 foKku ladk; ch0,l0lh0 Hkkx izFke izos'kkFkhZ fuEufyf[kr rhu oSdfYid fo"k;ksa ds oxksZa esa ls fdlh ,d oxZ dk p;u dj ldrs gS% oxZ 1 % jlk;u foKku@ouLifr foKku@HkwxHkZ foKku oxZ 2 % jlk;u foKku@Hkwxksy@HkwxHkZ foKku oxZ 3 % jlk;u foKku@izk.kh foKku@HkwxHkZ foKku oxZ 4 % jlk;u foKku @ izk.kh foKku@HkwxHkZ foKku oxZ 5 % jlk;u foKku@ouLifr foKku@izk.kh foKku oxZ 6 % jlk;u foKku@xf.kr@HkkSfrd foKku oxZ 7 % dEI;wVj ( lax.kd ) foKku@xf.kr@HkkSfrd foKku oxZ 8 % bysDVksfuDl@xf.kr@HkkSfrd foKku oxZ 9 % dEI;wVj ( lxa.kd ) foKku@xf.kr@lkaf[;dh oxZ 10 % vFkZ'kkL=@xf.kr@lkaf[;dh oxZ 11 % HkkSfrd foKku@xf.kr@lkaf[;dh oxZ 12 % HkwxHkZ foKku@xf.kr@HkkSfrd foKku oxZ 13 % HkwxHkZ foKku@jlk;u foKku@xf.kr oxZ 14 % ck;ksVsd@ouLifr foKku@izk.kh foKku oxZ 15 % ck;ksVsd@jlk;u foKku@izk.kh foKku oxZ 16 % ck;ksVsd@jlk;u foKku@ouLifr foKku " 15. Considering the subject of General Science, which is taught at the level of Class IX and X, the Academicians have considered it appropriate to prescribe the qualification for Science Teacher that of Zoology, Botany and Chemistry and such an incumbent is also having the experience of Physics subject at the level of Class XI and XII as incumbent having the graduation qualification is supposed to have completed intermediate education in Science, which contains essentially subject of Physics also. Thus, endeavour of the respondents while amending the rules is that they have the Science Teachers with the experience in the aforesaid subjects of Zoology, Botany and Chemistry as well as in Physics. In the group of subjects, which are being offered at the graduation level indicates that incumbents passing graduation with other group of subjects, are having at the most qualification in one or two branches of Science subject offered in Class IX and X. The amendment is made to have Science Teacher with wide spectrum of subjects which is possible as per group of subjects offered at graduation level. Thus, the person not graduate with Zoology, Botany and Chemistry have been ousted from staking their claim for the post of Science Teacher. No doubt about it some of the incumbents, who are holding the qualification of Physics which is not included in Amendment but Physics is offered at the graduation level in Category-3 with Chemistry and Geology. In Category-6, Physics is offered with group of Chemistry and Mathematics; and in Category-7, Physics is offered with Computer Science and Mathematics whereas in Category-8, Physics is offered with Electronics and Mathematics. In Category-11, Physics is offered with Mathematics and Statistics. In Category-12, Physics is offered with Geology and Mathematics. Similarly, when we come to subject of Bio-technology in Category- 14, Bio-technology is offered with Zoology and Botany. Then, in Category-15, Bio-technology is offered with Chemistry and Zoology and in Category-16, Bio-technology is offered with Chemistry and Botany. Thus, it is apparent that an incumbent is having the qualification of graduation level with subject of Physics, is having experience in only one or two subjects, i.e. Physics or one more subject to teach in class IX and X. In order to have teacher with wider range of subject experience for science course, it is considered necessary to prescribe the qualification of Zoology, Botany and Chemistry as subjects for Senior Teacher of Science. Such an incumbent is bound to have knowledge of Physics also at intermediate level. Similarly, person passing graduation with subject of Biotechnology is not having the knowledge of teaching of other subjects i.e. Chemistry. Main subjects which are prescribed for Class IX and X are Zoology, Botany, Chemistry at graduation level and the experience of Bio-technology and Physics at intermediate level considering the group of subjects, which are offered at graduate level, is considered to be appropriate. The decision cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner.16. It is not open for the Courts to interfere with such academic decision, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Rathinaswami & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 625 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the question whether the difference in the educational qualifications is sufficient to give preferential treatment to one class of candidates against another. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such a question should ordinarily be left to the concerned authorities to decide. The concerned authorities have expertise in such matters.17. In our opinion also, the matter being purely academic, it is for the academicians to take such decisions. The Court is loath to interfere in such matters unless the decision is palpably illegal and is wholly impermissible. We do not find the decision of the respondent to be illegal or impermissible one. The amendment made in 2010 has been made effective from 18.7.2008, before the date on which first advertisement was issued for inviting applications. Thus, amended rule is deemed to be prevailing on the date on which initial advertisement was issued.18. We are not in oblivion of proposition that normal rule isonce process of recruitment has been initiated, it is to be carried out in accordance with the rules prevailing at that time. However, in the instant case, before examination was held, the rules were amended with retrospective effect and corrigendum to advertisement was also issued. Corrigendum relate back to first advertisement itself. Merely in view of the fact that applications were not required to be submitted again cannot give right to the petitioners with respect to the qualification also. It cannot be treated that applications submitted by incumbents, who are not eligible as per amended rules, were given relaxation in the condition by not requiring to submit application form again. Merely in view of the fact that applications were not required to be submitted again cannot give right to the petitioners with respect to the qualification also. It cannot be treated that applications submitted by incumbents, who are not eligible as per amended rules, were given relaxation in the condition by not requiring to submit application form again. It was only procedural requirement and formality of submitting application forms afresh, was dispensed with. It created no right to petitioners who are not having the eligibility qualification as provided in rules. The incumbents are supposed to have qualification as prescribed by way of amendment in the year 2010, which has a purpose behind it. Before 2008, Senior Teachers were not divided into different categories.In the year 2008, separate categories of Senior Teacher were prescribed. They were divided in different six categories i.e. (1) Hindi, (2) English, (3) Maths, (4) Science, (5) Third Language and (6) Social Science. In order to give effect to the aforesaid amendment, it was necessary to prescribe the qualification for Science Teacher as various group of subjects are offered at the graduation level, which may not be of much relevance for teaching subject of General Science at the level of Class IX and X. Thus, the amendment was infact necessary and that has been made with retrospective effect and corrigendum to the advertisement has been issued. Such amendment/ corrigendum cannot be said to be arbitrary. As such, it would be deemed that the qualification has been prescribed w.e.f. 18.7.2008 for the post of Senior Teacher of Science and the same have been advertised by the respondents. Thereafter, the examination had been held in the month of May, 2011. Thus, we find that the rule cannot be said to be unconstitutional and no vested right of the petitioners have been abridged.19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have relied upon the decision in Madan Mohan Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2008)3 SCC 724 , in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that once advertisement had been issued on the basis of circular obtaining at that particular time, the effect would be that selection process should continue on the basis of criteria which are laid down and it cannot be on the basis of the criteria which has been made subsequently. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered that subsequent amendment of the Rules made during the pendency of the advertisement which was prospective cannot be made retrospective so as to make the selection on the basis of the Rules which were subsequently amended. If this was to be done, then the only course open was to recall the advertisement and to issue a fresh advertisement according to the Rules which had come into force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down thus:- "11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Mr.M.R.Calla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has strenuously urged that during the pendency of the selection process, the eligibility criteria were changed and the date for submission of the application in pursuance to the advertisement was extended and Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996 came into being on 30-12-1996 whereby it was provided that Higher Secondary Examination shall be the criteria for preparing the merit list. As such, as per the service rules, the selection should have been made on the basis of Higher Secondary Examination marks and not on the basis of Secondary Examination marks. We regret this cannot be accepted. Once the advertisement had been issued on the basis of the circular obtaining at that particular time, the effect would be that the selection process should continue on the basis of the criteria which were laid down and it cannot be on the basis of the criteria which has been made subsequently. 12. As per the circular which was obtaining at the time when the advertisement was issued dated 24.7.1995, the criteria for selection to the post of teacher Grade III was Secondary Examination though this was changed during the pendency of the advertisement. Subsequent amendment of the Rules which was prospective cannot be made retrospective so as to make the selection on the basis of the Rules which were subsequently amended. If this was to be done, then the only course open was to recall Advertisement No.1 of 1996 and to issue fresh advertisement according to the Rules which had come into force. Subsequent amendment of the Rules which was prospective cannot be made retrospective so as to make the selection on the basis of the Rules which were subsequently amended. If this was to be done, then the only course open was to recall Advertisement No.1 of 1996 and to issue fresh advertisement according to the Rules which had come into force. Secondly, this was not done and erroneously the authorities made the amended Rules applicable and proceeded with the selection which resulted into litigation and ultimately Radhey Shyam Sharma succeeded in that litigation and it was held that the selection should be made as per Secondary Examination marks, the criteria which was prevalent at the time when the advertisement was issued." 20. It is apparent from the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the amendment which was made during the pendency of the advertisement was prospective. In the instant case, the rules have been amended with retrospective effect and relate back to issuance of the advertisement and initiation of process of recruitment. Apart from that, it is also apparent that corrigendum to advertisement has also been issued which, in our opinion, also amounts to fresh advertisement which recourse is held to be permissible by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to issue fresh advertisement according to the new rules, which had come into force. In the instant case, by issuing corrigendum, the amendment made in the Rules of 1971 in the year 2010 was made known to the incumbents and vacancies were proposed to be filled in the light of the amendment incorporated in 2010. It cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners; nor any vested right has been taken away in this case. The examination has been held after amendment of Rules.21. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008)3 SCC 512 , in which, it has been laid down that once selection criterion has been prescribed, the rules of game cannot be changed afterwards. Minimum qualifying marks for interview prescribed after the interviews were over, was not permissible. In the instant case, rules itself have been amended and given retrospective effect and by issuance of corrigendum, initial advertisement has also been corrected. Minimum qualifying marks for interview prescribed after the interviews were over, was not permissible. In the instant case, rules itself have been amended and given retrospective effect and by issuance of corrigendum, initial advertisement has also been corrected. Consequently, the ratio of the decision, which was not regarding effect of amendment of the rules, is not attracted to the facts of the instant case.22. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh Rathore & Ors. v. B.N.Chaturvedi & Ors., 2007 AIR SCW 6745 and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 , in which, while considering the previous decision of the Regional Rural Banks and provision of Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act and rules framed thereunder, it has been held that the vacancies are to be filled by promotion under the rules which were in operation on the date when the vacancies had occurred. The decision is distinguishable as in instant case rules have been amended with retrospective effect and error had crept in rules amended in 2008 with respect to optional subjects.23. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Prakash Chand etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1990(2) RLR 1 wherein the Division Bench of this Court while relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.V.Rangai v. J.Shrivasa Rao, 1983(3) SCC 284 , has laid down that the eligibility of the candidates must be adjudged with reference to the year to which the vacancies relate. By the subsequent amendment in the rule, candidate cannot be made to suffer, who is eligible against the vacancy created prior to the said amendment. In the instant case, the amendment has been made with retrospective effect. Thus, the ratio of said decision is not attracted and the amendment made has been found to be permissible one in the instant case, the same cannot be said to be unconstitutional or ultra vires in any way.24. It was lastly submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in certain other State's Service Rules, there are requirement of only two optional subjects for the post of Senior Teacher. Validity of rules of 1971 cannot be tested with reference to the rules of other States. It was lastly submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that in certain other State's Service Rules, there are requirement of only two optional subjects for the post of Senior Teacher. Validity of rules of 1971 cannot be tested with reference to the rules of other States. Once amendment is appropriate and it is not arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional, it is not for courts to substitute their wisdom to that of academicians.25. Resultantly, the writ petitions being bereft of merits are hereby dismissed. No costs.Petitions dismissed *******