JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of newly added respondents is taken on record. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not propose to file any rejoinder-affidavit. This bunch of writ petitions has been filed with the prayer to quash the Advertisements published for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Boring Technician being Advertisement No. 01 of 2004-05 dated 29.9.2004 (105 posts), No. 03 of 2003-04 dated 2.6.2003 (401 posts) and No. 05 of 2003-04 dated 23.7.2003 (79 posts of SC/ST Category Candidates). These advertisements have been published by the office of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P., Lucknow. The appointments made with reference thereto are also under challenge : 2. Under the advertisement the essential qualifications prescribed for being considered for the post in question read as follows : “Anivarya Ahartayein: 1. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Se High School Pariksha Ya Sarkar Dwara Uske Samkaksha Manyata Prapt Koi Pariksha Awashya Uttirn Ho. 2. (Ka) Rajkiya Pravidhik Kendra, Gorakhpur Dwara Diya Gaya Nalkoop Mechanic Pathyakram Mein Praman Patra Ya Sarkar Dwara Uske Samkaksha Manyata Prapt Koi Praman Patra Abhyarthi Ke Paas Hona Awashyak Hai. Ya (Kha) Nimnlikhit Kisi Vyavsaya Mein Sewayojan Evam Prashikshan Nideshalaya Uttar Pradesh Ya Audhyogik Prashikshan Sansthan Dwara Diya Gaya Do Varsh Ke Pathyakram Ka Diploma Abhyarthi Ke Paas Hona Awashyak Hai : 1. Machine Mistri (Machinist) 2. Fitter 3. Motor Mechanic 4. Mechanic (Antardahan Injan) 5. Plumber 6. Aujarsaaj (Tool Maker) 7. Rajkiya Pravidhik Kerndra, Laal Diggi Parkm Gorakhpur Ke Nalkoop Machine Ka Praman Patra Pathyakram 8. Wire Man 9. Turner”. In pursuance to the said Advertisement selections have taken place. The petitioners were also the applicants. They have not been selected. The basic ground for challenging the select panel notified is that no selected candidate is possessed of the qualifications as provided for under the Advertisement. 3. According to the petitioners none of the selected candidates are possessed of the advertised essential qualifications i.e. Diploma from the Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.), Gorakhpur in respect of Nalkoop Mechanic or any equivalent qualification so notified by the State Government. It is further their case that none of the selected candidates possess any diploma granted by the Industrial Training Institute in the trades mentioned under the Advertisement (sub heading 1 to 9) of the essential qualification. Therefore, it is their case that the entire selections are bad. 4. It is further their case that none of the selected candidates possess any diploma granted by the Industrial Training Institute in the trades mentioned under the Advertisement (sub heading 1 to 9) of the essential qualification. Therefore, it is their case that the entire selections are bad. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents as well as by the private respondents who have been selected. It is admitted to the respondents that the selected candidates are not possessed of the qualifications/diploma as provided for under Clause 2(A) or 2 years’ diploma from the I.T.I. in any of the trades mentioned in Clause 2(B). All of them are possessed of a certificate issued by the I.T.I. in the trade of Mechanics. It is further their case that subsequent to 1963 the I.T.I.s in the State of U.P. have stopped teaching in 2 years’ diploma course in the trades mentioned in sub heading 1 to 9 of Clause 2(B) of the Advertisement. The I.T.I.s impart certificate training only in the trades mentioned. 5. According to the respondents there was an error apparent in the Advertisement as well as in the Rules which were then applicable insofar as it prescribed 2 years’ diploma in the trades mentioned as the essential qualification. 6. The State Government realising the said mistake exercised its power under Section 309 of the Constitution of India and decided to amend the Rules applicable for the post. The rules have been so amended with the issuance of the notification dated 11.7.2006 known as U.P. Minor Irrigation Department Boring Technicians Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2006. The relevant part of the amended Rules which has been introduced by way of a proviso and which has specifically been relied upon by both the counsels for the respondents reads as follows : “Parantu Niyam 8 Ke Khand (2) Ke Khand (Kha) Mein, Uttar Pradesh Laghu Sinchai Vibhag Sanshodhan Niyamawali, 2006 Ke Prarambh Ke Purva Yatha Vidhyaman Shabd ‘Diploma’ Ke Sthan Per Shabd ‘Praman Patra’ Mein Rakh Diye Jayenge Aur Ise 19.10.1993 Se Rakhaa Hua Samjha Jayega.” The case of the respondents is that amendments in the Rules should have been made so as to bring it in consonance with the changed training course offered by the I.T.I.’s. This according to them resulted in a wrong qualification being mentioned in the Advertisements published in the year 2003 and 2004. The State Government has corrected its mistake by making necessary amendments in the Service Rules applicable in the year 2006 with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 19.10.1993. The selected candidates including the respondents impleaded in the representative capacity are possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification as enforced with retrospective effect. 7. Learned counsel for the State Shri A.K.Tewari points out that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Autar v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 All 328 , has recognised the power of the State to frame Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India with retrospective effect. Therefore, he submits that the amendments made in the Service Rules, 2006 with retrospective effect cannot be faulted with. For the same purpose reference has also been made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandravathi P.K. and others v. C.K. Saji and others, 2004 (3) SCC 734 , in the case of Tejshree Ghag and others v. Prakash Parashuram Patil and others, 2007 (6) SCC 220 and in the case of K. Ravindranath Pal and another v. State of Karnataka and another, 1995 Supp (2) SCC, 246. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. From the facts as are borne out from the records, it is now an admitted position that the essential qualification which were notified in the Advertisement were as per the Rules which were in force on the date of publication of the Advertisement namely U.P. Minor Irrigation Department Boring Technician Service Rules, 1993. It is further not in dispute that the essential qualification as notified in the Advertisement did not admit of any exception and further that none of the selected candidates are possessed of the essential qualifications as provided in the Advertisement. 9. What is being contended before this Court on behalf of the respondents is that since the Rules of 1993 have been amended with retrospective effect under the notification of the year 2006, referred to above, and the word ‘Diploma’ has been substituted by the word ‘Certificate’ under Rule 8, the amended Rules would become applicable to the selections in question. Therefore, the appointment made of the selected candidates including the persons impleaded in representative capacity is of the persons who are possessed of the qualifications as per the amended Rules is valid. Therefore, the appointment made of the selected candidates including the persons impleaded in representative capacity is of the persons who are possessed of the qualifications as per the amended Rules is valid. The stand so taken has to be rejected. 10. Essential qualifications as notified in the Advertisement was the information which was held out to the public at large so as to provide an opportunity to submit an application for the post in question. Any person not possessed of such essential qualifications as advertised in normal course of things shall not apply. Therefore, in light of the subsequent amendments made by the State Government qua the essential qualifications in the Rules, 1993, the advertisement was also required to be amended accordingly. If the State Government had come to the conclusion that the essential qualifications mentioned in the Advertisement was incorrect due to retrospective amendment in the Rules, 1993 the least expected from the State Government was to publish a fresh advertisement with the changed qualification so that all such eligible candidates who were possessed of the essential qualification as per the amended Rules, could submit their application. Mere amendment in the Rules will not justify the selection of the candidates contrary to the qualifications disclosed in the Advertisement. 11. The contention of the respondents that the qualifications stand amended with retrospective effect from 19.10.1993 has to be accepted. What follows is that the Advertisement which prescribed different qualifications is rendered bad being contrary to the qualifications as provided under the Rules. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , has specifically laid down that any selections/appointments in public employment made contrary to the Advertisement or without Advertisement would be per se arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Extending the same logic, any appointment made on the basis of an incorrect qualifications mentioned in the Advertisement would also be bad for the same reasons, as it also results in persons actually qualified being denied an opportunity to apply. 13. For the said reasons irrespective of the amendments made in the Rules, 1993 with retrospective effect, all the appointments made by the State on incorrect Advertisement under challenge, cannot be legally sustained and are hereby quashed. 14. 13. For the said reasons irrespective of the amendments made in the Rules, 1993 with retrospective effect, all the appointments made by the State on incorrect Advertisement under challenge, cannot be legally sustained and are hereby quashed. 14. The State Government is at liberty to publish a fresh Advertisement in terms of the amended rules and to hold fresh selections on the posts in question. Writ petitions are allowed subject to the observations made herein above. ——————