ORDER There are six petitioners all bunched together in the present writ application. Reason for doing so is because all the six have not made it to the post of Jail Warden for which Advertisement No.1 of 2013 was initiated. The reason for non- selection, however, varies from candidate to candidate. 2. There are three petitioners, namely, petitioners no.1, Narendra Kumar, petitioner no. 2, Sanjeet Kumar and petitioner no.5, Vivek Kumar. The reason for their non- selection is that they are trained Home Guards from Jharkhand which, according to the petitioner, is not a disqualification. 3. It is further made clear that all petitioners are applicants for consideration under 25% quota of Home Guards. 4. With regard to the above three petitioners, the contention of the counsel is that the advertisement did not indicate that people trained from other States much less the State of Jharkhand is a reason for disqualification or non- consideration. If the advertisement did not have such a clause, petitioners cannot be debarred from the benefit of selection. 5. Stand of the State represented through the Additional Advocate General 2 is that the basic requirement for such appointment or selection was duly notified by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar as far back as 3.6.2008. It is based on the said notification that the corresponding advertisement for appointment was issued. Clause 4. (ii) of the said notification, which is Annexure- A to the counter affidavit, clearly indicates that the 25% quota reserved for Home Guard must be trained from the State of Bihar. There is a reasoning or rational for doing so. Even otherwise, this notification has been in place for many a years without any challenge thereto. If this is the foundational notification based on which Advertisement No.1 of 2013 had been issued then the three petitioners, namely, petitioners 1, 2 and 5 have been rightly rejected from such appointment or selection. There cannot be two minds or opinion on this aspect of the matter. 6. The reason for non- selection of petitioner no.4 is that on the medical examination his eyesight was not found to be upto mark on 20.8.2013. The respondent authorities re-fixed the date for medical examination on 24.8.2013 when he was expected to report back with glasses having 6/6 eyesight. He did not report for the reason best known to him. This is the ground for non- consideration. The respondent authorities re-fixed the date for medical examination on 24.8.2013 when he was expected to report back with glasses having 6/6 eyesight. He did not report for the reason best known to him. This is the ground for non- consideration. The reason is attributable to petitioner no.4 and not to the respondents. 7. The third category of candidates, who have not been selected are those, who were not physically fit i.e. petitioners no.3 and 6. So far as their claim is concerned, counsel for these two petitioners submits that a notification on 4.9.2013 has been issued by the State of Bihar itself wherein they have talked in terms of waiver of physical requirement for appointment on the post of Jail Warden coming from the background of Home Guard or Ex- Service Man, looking at the nature of physical fitness and standards which are maintained for their engagement. If this is the stand or the opinion of the State, there is no reason why these two petitioners ought to be denied the benefit of such waiver or exemption notified on 4.9.2013. 8. On the face of it the submission of the counsel for the petitioner did look attractive. However, on a clear stand taken by the respondents that the terms and conditions of the notification dated 4.9.2013 will apply to the Advertisement No.10 of 2013 dated 12.10.2013 and it is a prospective notification and cannot relate back to the previous advertisement for which exercise has been completed in terms of the requirement prevalent at the relevant time. A prospective amendment for dilution or waiver of conditions cannot be permitted to relate back and if it happens, the entire selection process will be topsy-turvy as well as create many a litigations if mixing of two different advertisements and selections are permitted. 9. There is force in the contention or stand taken by the respondents in this regard. The requirement of physical fitness being stricter for applicants of Advertisement No.1 of 2013, the subsequent notification cannot be utilized for diluting those rigorous of requirement in a manner befitting them and adding to their advantage. In the opinion of the Court, therefore, the reason for non- selection of these petitioners are valid reasons and does not suffer from any vice. 10. Writ application, therefore, stands dismissed.