1. Petitioner along with other similarly situated has been appointed as Naib Tehsildar vide Order No. 66 of 2010 dated 30th April, 2010. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that effective date of his appointment should have been 20th November, 2009, so that petitioner would be governed by the old Pension Scheme. 3. The precise factual background so as to appreciate the controversy is that three advertisement Notices: 1 of 2002, 09 of 2005, 04 of 2008 were issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates for being considered for the posts of Naib Tehsildar State Cadre. The prescribed qualification prior to June 2003 for the said post was "Graduation". On 3rd June, 2003, SRO 178 has been issued in terms whereof Schedule appended to the Jammu and Kashmir Revenue (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1973 was amended, in terms whereof qualification has been prescribed as "Graduation having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects". 4. When the advertisement Notices were issued, the qualification prescribed therein is "Graduation". When the respondent-Board completed the process of selection, list of selected candidates was submitted to the Government. Vide Government Order No. FC (A) No. 189 of 2009 dated 20th November, 2009, sanction has been accorded to the appointment of 81 candidates selected in pursuance to Advertisement Notice Nos. 1 of 2002 dated 26.04.2002,09 of 2005 dated 14.12.2005 and 04 of 2008 dated 26.05.2008. 28 candidates including the petitioner, who were also selected, were not offered appointment as it was noticed that they did not possess requisite qualification, i.e., "Graduation having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects". Since there was mistake in the Advertisement Notices prescribing only qualification as "Graduation" but selection process was concluded, the cases of those 28 candidates including the petitioner appear to have been sympathically considered by the Government and then in terms of order No. FC (A) 66 of 2010 dated 30th April, 2010, sanction has been accorded to their appointment in relaxation of qualification with various conditions which include condition (e) which reads as under:- "(e) The new appointee must pass the Departmental examination in Urdu of minimum matric standard and shall not be given independent posting till they pass the departmentals as conveyed by the Administrative Department vide their letter No. Rev/NG/118/09 dated 02.03.2010. The inter-se-seniority of the appointees shall be determined with reference to the date of passing the departmental examination in Urdu of minimum matric standard and they shall be confirmed only after passing the departmental examination in Urdu of minimum Matric standard which will be conducted by the RTI Jammu/Srinagar." 5. The petitioner is stated to have passed the said departmental examination in Urdu but noticing another development, i.e., SRO 400 notified on 24th December, 2009 in terms of which amendment in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations has been made. In Article 167, Exception No. 6 has been added, which reads as under:- "(6) The State Government employees appointed on or after 01.01.2010 shall be governed by "New Pension Scheme" as per Article 249-M (B) added after 249-M (A) and accordingly, the existing Pension Rules shall not be applicable to Government employees appointed or brought on regular establishment on, or after 01.01.2010." 6. The petitioner, noticing that his appointment is after 01.01.2010, so he shall be governed by the Exception as quoted above, filed the instant petition after a gap of more than two years, i.e., on 7.8.2012, after the acceptance of his conditional appointment order dated 30th April, 2010. 7. The grievance projected is that he was selected along with all other candidates who have been appointed on 20th November, 2009, therefore, he has also to be considered to have been appointed with effect from 20th November, 2009. 8. His submission is totally misplaced. Basically, the petitioner was ineligible. An error was committed either by the requisitioning department or the Board as the prescribed qualification in terms of SRO 178 dated 3rd June, 2003 has not been reflected in the Advertisement Notice, i.e., instead of mentioning the qualification in the Advertisement Notice as 'Graduate having passed Matriculation in Urdu as one of the subject' only 'Graduation', has been mentioned. The petitioner along with others when after the selection process were selected, a sympathetic view was taken by the respondents-Government by sanctioning their appointment in relaxation of the qualification with a condition as quoted above. So their appointment, in any case, would not date back to 20th November, 2009. Their appointment for all practical purposes will reckon from the date of their appointment, i.e., 30th April, 2010. 9. The petitioner had accepted without murmur the terms and conditions of the appointment order. So their appointment, in any case, would not date back to 20th November, 2009. Their appointment for all practical purposes will reckon from the date of their appointment, i.e., 30th April, 2010. 9. The petitioner had accepted without murmur the terms and conditions of the appointment order. Now after two years; he cannot turn around to claim that appointment shall be given effect retrospectively. 10. Denial to his appointment was circumstantial, he is the beneficiary of the relaxation and it is in view of that relaxation, he got appointed otherwise he was ineligible. 11. View thus, retrospective effect to the appointment of the petitioner is impermissible as a result thereof SRO 400 New Pension Scheme is applicable to him, as having been appointed on 30.04.2010. 12. Petition, for the above referred reasons, has no merit, as such dismissed.