Order Anjana Mishra, J. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order, dated 30.01.2014, passed in CWJC No. 11056 of 2013, whereby and whereunder a learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ application on the ground that the writ petitioner had no case inasmuch as the result of the examination was declared on the basis of the initial declaration made by the candidates pursuant to the advertisement published in this regard. 2. The appellant herein was a candidate for the posts of Enforcement Sub-Inspector, which was advertised, vide Advertisement No. 1004, dated 16.12.2004, inasmuch as pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied in the prescribed application form. While making the application, the petitioner mentioned that he fell under reserved category of Backward Class. Along with his filled up form, the petitioner submitted documents/certificates, including a certificate, which went to show that he belonged to reserved category of Backward Class. 3. The respondent third party (i.e., the Staff Selection Commission, Patna) did not conduct necessary examination till 15.7.2012, i.e., for almost a period of about eight years. 4. In the meantime, respondent third party, under the signature of the Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, vide advertisement on the website http/:/bssc.bih.nic.in/, announced that the candidates, who had submitted their application forms for selection/appointment to the posts of Enforcement Sub-Inspector, pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1004, dated 16.12.2004, should correct their class of reserved category by 25.2.2005. It is relevant to mention here that during the intervening period, the reserved category of some of the castes was, in the year 2010, changed from “backward class” to “most backward class/extreme backward class”. Subsequently, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, vide another Notice published, on 23.3.2012, contained in Memo No. 1428/Aa, called upon the candidates to make corrections as per direction. The candidates, accordingly, corrected their caste category in their respective application forms. 5. The writ petitioner contended, in the writ petition, that from a perusal of paragraph 3 of the said notice, which was in respect of Advertisement No. 1004 for appointment to the 47 posts of Enforcement Sub-Inspector, it is clear that respondent Bihar Staff Selection Commission had clearly compelled the candidates to change their class in reserved category in the cases, where the State Government had changed the class of reserved category from backward class to most backward class. The petitioner submitted that the Staff Selection Commission also asked such candidates to produce their current/ up to date caste certificate in respect of change of their class in the reserved category with further clarification that the candidate concerned did not belong to the creamy layer of reserved category concerned. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission fixed 17.04.2012 as the last date for submitting such certificates. 6. In pursuance of the aforementioned notice issued by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, the petitioner submitted a certificate, dated 22.07.2010, indicating therein his current/up-to-date caste along with a further certificate showing that he did not belong to the creamy layer of his reserved category class. Thus, the petitioner made an application for changing his reserved class category from backward class to most backward class, on 16.4.2012, duly received and accepted by the Staff Selection Commission. This fact finds support from the Admit Card, which was issued in favour of the petitioner showing his category as “Most Backward Class”. The Roll number of the petitioner was 13049, which is evident from Annexure 6 to the writ application. 7. The further case of the petitioner is that he appeared in the written examination held on 26.08.2012 and was declared successful in the written examination and was, therefore, called for physical test. It was, however, contended by the petitioner that he was called for physical test on 17.11.2012, he appeared on the date fixed for his physical test and the result of the same was published on the website of Bihar Staff Selection Commission on 25.11.2012. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that initially, upon declaration of the results of written examination, only 2.5 times of the candidates were called for physical test; but since it came to be known that at least, five times of the vacancy available, candidates need to be called for physical test, a second list was also issued calling for more candidates. 9. The petitioner came out successfully in the written as well as physical test and he was, therefore, called for interview on 08.01.2013. 10. The petitioners grievance first surfaced, when, upon the interview, the final select list of the successful candidates of all categories, namely, general category, scheduled tribe category, backward class (reserved category), most backward class (backward category) scheduled caste (backward category) and backward class of women (reserved category) came to be announced. 10. The petitioners grievance first surfaced, when, upon the interview, the final select list of the successful candidates of all categories, namely, general category, scheduled tribe category, backward class (reserved category), most backward class (backward category) scheduled caste (backward category) and backward class of women (reserved category) came to be announced. Out of the 47 seats, the names of 45 successful candidates were recommended by respondent Staff Selection Commission (in short, SSC) for the posts of Enforcement Sub-Inspector in the Transport Department, Government of Bihar. 11. It was contended by the petitioner that from a perusal of the result, so issued, it was clear that out of eight posts of Enforcement Sub-Inspector in the reserved category of most backward class (MBC), names of only six successful candidates were recommended for the said appointment and the names of two successful candidates were kept in abeyance on the pretext of seeking legal opinion, although their names fell in the said category. The petitioner submits that the respondents failed to offer any plausible explanation for their omission to include the petitioner in the select list of candidates, who were recommended for appointment to the post of Enforcement Sub-inspector in Transport Department, Government of Bihar nor could he (petitioner) get a final decision from the office of the respondent SSC on his grievance as to why he had not been selected. The petitioner, therefore, moved this Court, with a writ petition, seeking issuance of appropriate writ. 12. The case of the petitioner, thus, is that the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, by their own declaration and positive acts, had compelled the petitioner and other similarly situated persons to change the class of reserved category from Backward Class to Most Backward Class in view of a decision taken by the State Government, whereby some castes, which had been categorized in Backward Class category, were further categorized as Most Backward Class. This change had occurred in the year 2010 itself, when the caste “Lohar” was put into the reserved category of Most Backward Class and accordingly, the petitioner, who is a member of Lohar community, submitted, in pursuance of the notice issued by the Staff Selection Commission, his documents for change of his class of reserved class category from Backward Class to Most Backward Class. It was contended by the petitioner that the respondents, having induced the petitioner to change the reserved category class from Backward Class to Most Backward Class, cannot refuse to give him the benefit of the Most Backward Class as indicated in his Admit Card issued by the SSC, especially, when the petitioner had come out successfully in all the examinations as a candidate of Most Backward Class. The respondents, according to the appellant/petitioner, acted illegally in not recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment to the said 2 (two) vacant sanctioned posts under the reserved class category of Most Backward Class. The petitioner, therefore, prayed, in his writ petition, that he be treated as a member of the Most Backward Class and, in view of the two vacancies remaining available in the said category, the petitioner ought to be appointed on the post of Enforcement Sub-Inspector. 13. Contesting the writ petition, the Staff Selection Commission (i.e., SSC) has filed a counter affidavit averring therein, inter alia, that though the respondent SSC had invited applications calling for change of category from such candidates, who had applied for the post of Enforcement Sub-Inspector, the fact remains that as per the position of law, the category, which was claimed by the petitioner at the time of submission of application, i.e. before the cut off date, cannot be changed. The Commission further contended that it is settled legal proposition of law that once a selection process starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed and any amendment, during the continuance of the selection process, cannot affect the process of appointment, which already commenced. 14. The submission of the appellant, while assailing the impugned order, is that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that it was the respondent alone, who had, by issuing repeated notices, called upon the petitioner to change his category from backward class to most backward class during the course of the selection process and, having compelled him to alter the same, could not use it to the disadvantage of the appellant. It was further submitted by the appellant that he had been permitted to appear in the examination of Enforcement Sub-Inspector in the category of “most backward class”, which is very much evident from a perusal of the admit card annexed to the writ application. It was further submitted by the appellant that he had been permitted to appear in the examination of Enforcement Sub-Inspector in the category of “most backward class”, which is very much evident from a perusal of the admit card annexed to the writ application. However, the learned Single Judge, according to the writ petitioner, failed to appreciate and consider this aspect of the matter nor was it considered that the declaration of the results of written and physical tests, by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, with regard to the petitioner, were made treating the petitioner as a member of the most backward class. 15. The further submission, on behalf of the appellant, is that the Government, while making appointment of Ayush Doctor, in the Department of Health, as per Advertisement issued on 23.06.2008, had come to be placed in the similar situation, wherein the Government permitted the change of category of two castes, namely, “Barhi” and “Patwa”, who had been converted from the category of Backward Class to Extremely Backward Class, and candidates were accordingly allowed to change their category by 30.09.2009, though the last date for submission of applications was 9th May, 2008. It was in such premises that the candidates, claiming the relief of appointment as Ayush doctors, came before this Court in LPA No. 205 of 2013 and this Court, while considering the matter had extended the benefit of such changes in favour of the candidates, who had appeared in the said examination. It was contended by the appellant therein (i.e., appellant in LPA No. 205 of 2013), that the respondents had not raised the issue of prospective application of government notification of change of reserved category during pendency of the advertisement in the said case; but in the present case, the SSC had denied to make available benefit to the case of appointment of Enforcement Sub Inspector, though the decision of LPA No. 205 of 2013 is binding on the respondents. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the SSC was guilty of suppressing material facts from the Court as the cut off marks in the written test as also the marks, obtained by the appellant, had not been disclosed by the Commission, which would have falsified the stand taken, in the affidavit, by the SSC. 17. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the SSC was guilty of suppressing material facts from the Court as the cut off marks in the written test as also the marks, obtained by the appellant, had not been disclosed by the Commission, which would have falsified the stand taken, in the affidavit, by the SSC. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that all the results of the appellant having been published after considering him in the Most Backward Class category, it was not open to the respondents to go back from their own declaration treating the appellant as successful and to deny to treat him as not selected on the pretext of obtaining legal advice. 18. The respondent SSC has contested the present appeal by referring to the counter affidavit filed by them in the writ application, wherein they have clearly contended that the decision of the Government, contained in the Resolution of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform, dated 25.03.2010 (Annexure “A”), did not speak of the changes made to Para 9(2) of the said order as being retrospective in nature, though it did speak of the caste “Lohar” being removed from the category of Backward Class and being included in the category Most Backward Class. It only spoke of the said decision of the Government being notified and necessary information being sent to all concerned, which included the Staff Selection Commission, Patna. Accordingly, once the selection process had commenced, it was not open to the SSC to make any changes in the eligibility criteria or rules for giving any advantage on the basis of subsequent events and changes. 19. The respondents contended that pursuant to the decision contained in Annexure “A”, it appears that some candidates did make changes in the category of their case in terms of notice aforementioned, SSC, inadvertently, accorded such change in the category from Backward Class to Most Backward Class of all such candidates, whose caste status, now, stood altered without realizing that such candidates had to be assigned the reserved category to which they belonged on the cut off date of the advertisement. However, the said mistake was detected at the time of interview, during verification of the certificates of the candidates and, as such, it was deemed fit to take an opinion from the Law Department of the Government of Bihar, which resulted in the withholding of the result of the appellant. The respondents further submitted that it is well settled principle of law that once the selection process has commenced fixing a particular prescribed selection criterion, the same cannot be changed or altered and any amendment made, during the ensuing process, will not have any bearing on the selection process. 20. It was also categorically averred by the SSC that it is equally well settled principle of law that every statute, statutory rule/order is prospective in nature unless and until it is, expressly, or by necessary implication, made retrospective in effect. Thus, unless there are words in a statute showing the intention to affect the existing rights, the same must be held to be prospective in nature and if a rule is expressed in a language, which is capable of either interpretation, it ought to be considered prospective only. 21. Learned counsel for the SSC has contended that by Annexures “C” & “D”, dated 19.10.2009 and 15.11.2012 respectively, the State Government had categorically stated that any alteration made, in the reserved category, would have effect only after the date of its issuance and all appointments, which had been advertised prior to the issuance of the changes, would be considered only in the light of the then existent rules with regard to reservation policy. 22. The SSC also placed on record the decision with regard to the appointment of Ayush Doctors and the consideration thereon by this Court in LPA No. 205 of 2013. It was argued that even in the said decision, the Court had dismissed the writ application and held that the changes, which had been incorporated in the reservation policy subsequent to the decision of the State Government, as prospective in nature and it was not within the jurisdiction of the Court to give retrospective effect to a legislative policy given prospective effect by the Legislature. 23. 23. In support of the contention, the respondents have referred to P. Mahendran v. The State of Karnataka ( AIR 1990 SC 405 ), wherein the Supreme Court has clearly laid down, in paragraph 5 of its decision, that in the matter of appointment, when the selection process has commenced and there is any amendment of rules changing eligibility criteria, the rules, having no retrospective effect, cannot affect existing rights. Unless, therefore, there are words, in a statute or in rules, showing the intention to affect existing rights, the rule must be held to be prospective. The relevant observations, appearing in P. Mahendran (supra), read as under:- “5. It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If a rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rules of 1987 do not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rules were not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force, the amended Rules could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter.” 24. Consistent with its decision in P. Mahendran (supra), the Supreme Court, in N. T Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission & ors., ( AIR 1990 SC 1233 (1), observed, at paragraph 11, as follows:- “11………Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing rules or government orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing rules and government orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication; if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection is accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature.” 25. In the present case, the learned counsel for the appellant tried to impress upon us the true import of the change in reservation policy by which the appellant could draw benefit from the amended rules, especially, in view of the fact that the Government, in its enthusiasm, had issued advertisement calling upon the candidates to have their changed castes incorporated in the application already made by them earlier. It is evident from the advertisement that on the date of application, the reservation policy, as applicable, would be effective and the last date for submission of applications had been fixed as 25.2.2005. The process of selection, thus, started soon after the cut off date fixed for filing applications and any changes made, subsequent thereto in the reservation policy, could not have been read into the said advertisement. The Staff Selection Commission, though having taken notice of the changes adopted by the State Government including certain castes as being those belonging to Most Backward Caste and permitting the applicants to change their reservation criteria, had, in fact, subsequently, resolved not to permit such changes inasmuch as permitting such a change would amount to a clear contravention of the settled position of law with regard to appointments. Thus, at the time of publication of the final results, i.e. after the interview, the State opted to follow the reservation policy as existed on the cut of date i.e. 25.02.2005, which has been, in fact, affirmed as the correct procedure. 26. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the decision of this Court, passed in LPA No. 205 of 2013, is also supportive of the claim of the present appellant and that similar parameters ought to have been adopted by the State Government in the case of the appellant appear to be misconceived inasmuch as a perusal of the order, passed in LPA No. 205 of 2013 (Annexure “B”), clearly reveals that the appellants case was rejected and it was held that subsequent change, in the reservation policy after the cut off date, was not permissible in law. This fact also stands supported by the subsequent clarification Issued by the State Government in Annexures “C” & “D” (which is the stand taken by the respondent State of Bihar) that the Government had clarified that all changes, in reservation policy, were meant to be applied prospectively in the case of appointments. Further-more, it has been clarified by the Staff Selection Commission that the entire selection process was conducted, merit list was prepared and, finally, recommendations were made on the basis of the original application and declaration of caste made by the candidates at the time of filing of the original application. In other words, the caste category, which was claimed by the candidates at the time of submission of application (i.e. before the cut off date of submission of application), was the basis of selection of the candidates. 27. Considering the aforementioned submissions and also the settled position of law, we find and hold that the action of the respondents, in adopting the policy of reservation as it was existing on the cut off date, i.e. 25.02.2005, is correct, legal and valid in law and the learned Single Judge was wholly justified in holding that the case of the writ petitioner had no merit and called for no interference. 28. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 29. No order as to costs. I.A. Ansari, J. : I agree.