JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 26th August, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2192 of 2013, whereby, the petition preferred by the original petitioner has been dismissed and the relief, as sought for, by the petitioner has not been granted and the matter was remanded to the State Government for re-considering the facts. The original petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Factual Matrix: * Public advertisement was issued by the respondent-State authorities bearing Advertisement No. 8 of 2007 dated 22 June, 2007 with corrigendum dated 28th July 2007 for the post of Assistant Professor in the stream of Electrical Engineering. * In the year 2007, the qualification required was Master Degree in technical qualification and five years of teaching experience at the time of application. * This appellant (original petitioner) was already serving as a Lecturer in J.S.S. Academy of Technical Education, Noida, has applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the stream of Electrical Engineering. * This appellant (original petitioner) passed through the necessary tests including viva-vorce test and, ultimately, this appellant was recommended by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as J.P.S.C. for the sake of brevity) for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Electrical Engineering on 07.09.2011 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this L.P.A) * The State Government issued a notification for appointment of several candidates on 18th March, 2013 (Annexure 5), including this appellant (original petitioner) who is at Serial no. 15 to the said annexure. * Thus, the appellant (original petitioner) was appointed as Assistant Professor (formerly known as Lecturer). * This designation is in dispute because this appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor which is now renamed as Associate Professor and, therefore, he should have been appointed as Associate Professor for which a writ petition has been preferred bearing W.P.(S) No. 2192 of 2013. * It further appears from the facts of the case that the advertisement was published on 22nd June, 2007 and after the whole selection process is over and also after the recommendation dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this L.P.A) made by the J.P.S.C for appointment in the year 2011, this appellant was actually appointed in the year 2013. The Jharkhand State adopted the recommendation of the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter to be referred to as AICTE for the sake of brevity) dated 05.03.2010 on 31st March, 2012. * Thus, the aforesaid recommendation of AICTE dated 05.03.2010 which was adopted by the State of Jharkhand on 31st March, 2012 is to the effect that now onwards, for the post of Associate Professor, Ph.D Degree from the date of application is must whereas, previously, Ph.D degree was to be obtained within a period of seven years from the date of appointment. This appellant (original petitioner) acquired the higher qualification of Ph.D on 07.05.2014 i.e. within a period of seven years from the date of his appointment -March, 2013. * Thus, as per earlier rules prevailing as on the date of advertisement on 22nd June, 2007, this appellant (original petitioner) who had applied for the post of Assistant Professor and who was otherwise also qualified for the post of Associate Professor, should have been appointed as Associate Professor, as per the claim of this appellant. * Earlier post of Lecturer, Assistant Professor and Professor are now renamed as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. Thus, those who were earlier entitled for the post of Assistant Professor should now be posted as Associate Professor. The new rules for having Ph.D degree from the very inception for the post of Associate Professor, are not applicable to the advertisement no. 8 of 2007 because under that advertisement, the selection process was already completed. The rules of selection cannot be altered after the selection process has already been commenced. Here, not only selection process has been commenced, but, it has also been completed. Hence, this appellant preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) no. 2192 of 2013, but, the same was not allowed. As such, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2015, passed by the learned single judge in W.P.(S) No. 2192 of 2013, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 2. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the appellant: (i) This appellant (original petitioner) had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in pursuance of the public advertisement no. 8 of 2007 dated 22nd June, 2007, who was selected for the said post and, ultimately, recommendations were made by the J.P.S.C. on 07.09.2011 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this LPA). 2. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the appellant: (i) This appellant (original petitioner) had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in pursuance of the public advertisement no. 8 of 2007 dated 22nd June, 2007, who was selected for the said post and, ultimately, recommendations were made by the J.P.S.C. on 07.09.2011 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this LPA). It has further been submitted by counsel for the appellant that after the advertisement was issued in the year 2007, and the whole selection process including viva-vorce test and result thereof, is declared in the year 2011, the State of Jharkhand adopted the recommendation of the AICTE dated 05.03.2010 on 31st March, 2012. The rules have now been changed so far as basic qualification for the post of Associate Professor is concerned. It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) that the post of Lecturer is now converted into the post of Assistant Professor. Similarly, the post of Assistant Professor is now converted into Associate Professor and the post of Professor has been maintained as it is on and from March, 2012 onwards. (ii) Nonetheless, facts remain that this appellant who applied for the post of Assistant Professor and whose selection process has also been completed for the very same post, now he should be given the post of Associate Professor. As per earlier rules, Ph.d Degree was to be obtained within a period of seven years from the date of appointment. This appellant (original petitioner) was appointed in March, 2013 (Annexure 5) and obtained Ph.D degree on 07.05.2014. As per new rules, after advertisement and after selection process is completed, this Ph.D degree should be with the candidate as on the date of application. This new rule cannot be applied to the old advertisement and completed selection process. (iii) Counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) has relied upon judgments reported in:- (a) (1997) 6 SCC 623 (Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. Vs. C.R.Rangadhamaiah & Ors.) (b) (2010) 13 SCC 467 (State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Mithilesh Kumar) (c) (2014) 8 SCC 644 (Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora & Anr.) Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 151 of 2014 dated 16.06.2005 against which S.L.P. preferred by the State, has been dismissed by the order dated 04.03.2016. Vs. Mithilesh Kumar) (c) (2014) 8 SCC 644 (Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora & Anr.) Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 151 of 2014 dated 16.06.2005 against which S.L.P. preferred by the State, has been dismissed by the order dated 04.03.2016. (iv) On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the State has all power to frame the new rules, but, in the service jurisprudence, the new rules for qualification cannot be applied to the old advertisement and the completed selection process. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2192 of 2013 dated 26th August, 2015 and hence, the prayers, as prayed for in the writ petition may kindly be granted by the suitable modification in the judgment dated 26th August, 2015 delivered by the learned single Judge. 3. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the State: (i) Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the public advertisement was issued on 22nd June, 2007 for the post of Assistant Professor being advertisement no. 8 of 2007 in pursuance to which the selection process was started and the J.P.S.C. recommended the names of several candidates for the aforesaid posts, including this appellant (original petitioner) by recommendation letter dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure 3). (ii) Meanwhile i.e. after the recommendation made and before the appointment letter is given, Jharkhand State has adopted the recommendation of the AICTE dated 05.03.2010 on 31st March, 2012, and therefore, the appointment letter which was given in the year 2013, State has granted appointment to this appellant as Assistant Professor (Ex-Lecturer). This is mainly for the reason that the qualification for the post of Associate Professor has now been changed, after advertisement and after selection process is over. Now, the requirement for the post of Associate Professor is that candidate should have Ph.D degree as on date of application. This appellant (original petitioner) had no Ph.D degree as on date on which he had applied and, hence, no error has been committed by the State in granting appointment letter in the year 2013 as Assistant Professor (Ex-Lecturer). Now, the requirement for the post of Associate Professor is that candidate should have Ph.D degree as on date of application. This appellant (original petitioner) had no Ph.D degree as on date on which he had applied and, hence, no error has been committed by the State in granting appointment letter in the year 2013 as Assistant Professor (Ex-Lecturer). (iii) Nonetheless, the learned single Judge has relegated the matter of this appellant to the State to decide his claim within a period of six weeks with a direction that the same will be decided in accordance with law and in view of the decisions which are applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, this court may not allow this letters patent appeal. 4. Arguments canvassed by counsel appearing for J.P.S.C: Counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission has submitted that the appellant had appeared in the tests including viva-vorce test in pursuance of public advertisement dated 22nd June, 2007 for the post of Assistant Professor. He was a successful candidate and, therefore, his name was recommended by the J.P.S.C on 07.09.2011 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this L.P.A) for the post of Assistant Professor as this post has been renamed as Associate Professor, nothing is much harmful in giving him appointment as Associate Professor because, at the relevant time, the rules for the post of Associate Professor was to obtain Ph.D degree within seven years from the date of appointment. It is also submitted that new rules of change of qualification for the post of Associate Professor which has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand as on 31.03.2012, cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect to the public advertisement no. 8 of 2007 dated 22nd June, 2007 by which the selection process has already commenced and completed. It is also submitted that as per earlier qualification which was prevailing on date of advertisement and during the selection process, this appellant (original petitioner) has already acquired Ph.D degree on 07.05.2014 i.e. within a period of seven years from the date of his appointment (March, 2013). Thus, this appellant should have been appointed as Associate Professor instead of Assistant Professor. 5. Thus, this appellant should have been appointed as Associate Professor instead of Assistant Professor. 5. Reasons: Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby, modify the order passed by the learned single judge in W.P.(S) No. 2192 of 2013 dated 26th August, 2015 mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (I) It appears from the facts of the case that the post of Lecturer, Assistant Professor and Professor are now renamed as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor and hence, those who were applied for the post of Assistant Professor in pursuance of the advertisement no. 8 of 2007 dated nd June, 2007, should be appointed as Associate Professor. (II) The contention of the learned counsel for the State that now, the qualification for the post of Associate Professor has been changed, cannot be accepted because these rules cannot be made applicable to the selection process already commenced and completed for the post of Assistant Professor and therefore, those who had applied for the post of Assistant Professor, should be appointed as Associate Professor as per the rules which were prevailing as on date of advertisement and during the selection process. (III) As per earlier rules for the post of Associate Professor, candidates should have obtained Ph.D degree within a period of seven years from the date of his/her appointment. This appellant has already obtained Ph.D degree as on 07.05.2014 i.e. within seven years from the date of his appointment. If the new rules are not applicable to the selection process already started, commenced and completed, then this appellant can be safely appointed as Associate Professor. In the facts of the present case, the recommendations of UGC for change of qualification, adopted by the State of Jharkhand as on 31.03.2012, and hence, these recommendations which slightly altered the qualification for the post of Associate Professor, are not applicable to the advertisement no. 8 of 2007 and the selection process, which has been completed in the year 2011. (IV) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Ors. reported in (1997) 6 SCC, 623 especially paragraph no. 24 thereof, reads as under: “24. 8 of 2007 and the selection process, which has been completed in the year 2011. (IV) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Ors. reported in (1997) 6 SCC, 623 especially paragraph no. 24 thereof, reads as under: “24. In many of these decisions the expressions “vested rights” or “accrued rights” have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that these decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon, B.S. Yadav and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni.” (Emphasis supplied) (V) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Mithilesh Kumar reported in (2010) 13 SCC, 467 paragraph nos. 14,15,16 and 19 read as under:- “14. The learned counsel submitted that the conditions of the advertisement inviting applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Instructor (Electronics) in Kamla Nehru Social Service Institute for Handicapped and Rehabilitation Training Centre, Patna, could not have been altered to the prejudice of the respondent on account of a decision taken subsequently to have persons with disabilities trained by professionally established NGOs/institutions. Reliance was placed on the decision of this court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, where this Court in similar circumstances had held that when service rules are amended, vacancies which had occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. 15. Reliance was placed on the decision of this court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, where this Court in similar circumstances had held that when service rules are amended, vacancies which had occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. 15. Reference was also made by the learned counsel to the decision of this Court in N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, wherein it was reiterated that where selection process was initiated by issuing advertisement inviting applications, selection normally should be regulated by the rules and orders then prevailing. It was also emphasised that service jurisprudence provides that normally amendments effected during the pendency of a selection process operate prospectively, unless indicated to the contrary by express language or by necessary implication. 16. The learned counsel lastly referred to the decision of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B.Swapna, wherein while considering the norms for recruitment/selection for filling up vacancies which had been initially advertised, this Court was of the view that such norms of selection cannot be altered after commencement of the selection process and rules prescribing qualification, which were amended during the continuation of the selection process, have prospective operation unless something to the contrary is indicated expressly or by necessary implication. xx xx xx 19. Both the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench rightly held that the change in the norms of recruitment could be applied prospectively and could not affect those who had been selected for being recommended for appointment after following the norms as were in place at the time when the selection process was commenced. The respondent had been selected for recommendation to be appointed as Assistant Instructor in accordance with the existing norms. Before he could be appointed or even considered for appointment, the norms of recruitment were altered to the prejudice of the respondent. The question is whether those altered norms will apply to the respondent.” (Emphasis supplied) (VI) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora and Another reported in (2014) 8 SCC, 644 paragraph no. 22 thereof reads as under:- “22. However, on 31-7-2003, the 2003 Rules were framed. A bare perusal of the title of the Rules would show that the Rules came into force on 31-7-2003. Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora and Another reported in (2014) 8 SCC, 644 paragraph no. 22 thereof reads as under:- “22. However, on 31-7-2003, the 2003 Rules were framed. A bare perusal of the title of the Rules would show that the Rules came into force on 31-7-2003. The Rules supersede all existing Rules but Rule 5(4) of the 2001 Rules is transposed by Rule 5 (4) of the 2003 Rules. Rule 5(4) of the 2001 Rules provided that marks of interview shall be added to the marks of written examination for selection. But Rule 5(4) of the 2003 Rules provides that the marks obtained in the written examination and the marks obtained in the interview shall be increased by 10 extra marks in case of trained apprentices. In our opinion, the respondents could have taken no advantage of these Rules. The selection process was under the 2001 Rules. The 2001 Rules as well as the advertisement did not provide for any additional marks/weight age to be given to the trained apprentices. The 2003 Rules came into force on 31.7.2003. No retrospective effect can be given to the same without any express provision to that effect being made in the Rules. This apart, the 2001 Rules that were said to be amended were, in fact, non-existent. The 2001 Rules expired on 11.11.2001 in terms of Rule 6 thereof. The High Court, in our opinion, was in error holding that the 2003 Rules were applicable to the process of selection which had commenced in 2001 under the 2001 Rules.” (Emphasis supplied) (VII) In view of the aforesaid three decisions, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court consistently that once advertisement has been published for the vacancy of any post to be filled up and selection processes are already been commenced and thereafter, if the rules especially about the qualification of the very same post are altered then, new rule/rules are not applicable to the earlier advertisement and to the earlier selection process and much less to the earlier selected candidates. Thus, in view of the aforesaid three decisions, applying the ratio decidendi, to the facts of the present case, here, the advertisement was given on 22.6.2007, candidates appeared in the selection process-tests, including viva-vorce test. The J.P.S.C. recommended the candidates on 7.9.2011 (Annexure 3) including this appellant. Thereafter, on 31.3.2012, Jharkhand State adopted the recommendation of AICTE dated 5.3.2010. Thus, in view of the aforesaid three decisions, applying the ratio decidendi, to the facts of the present case, here, the advertisement was given on 22.6.2007, candidates appeared in the selection process-tests, including viva-vorce test. The J.P.S.C. recommended the candidates on 7.9.2011 (Annexure 3) including this appellant. Thereafter, on 31.3.2012, Jharkhand State adopted the recommendation of AICTE dated 5.3.2010. One of such recommendations which have been adopted later on, is about, basic qualification for the post of Associate Professor, especially for getting Ph.D. degree, earlier which was to be obtained within seven years from the date of appointment. Whereas, as per newly adopted recommendation Ph.D. degree is must as on date of application. As per the aforesaid decisions new rules/recommendations adopted by the State of Jharkhand as on 31st March, 2012, can not be applied or be given effect to the posts already advertised and to the selection process commenced and completed. Hence, this appellant should have been given appointment on the post of associate professor because now the earlier nomenclature of Assistant Professor is converted into associate professor. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned single judge and hence, last portion of the paragraph no. 6 as well as paragraph no. 7, are hereby modified and we hereby, direct the respondent-State to issue the fresh appointment letter for the post of associate professor to this appellant, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and order delivered by this Court. This appellant (original petitioner) will be entitled to get all the benefits of the post of Associate Professor from the date of his appointment, because the correction of the appointment letter is always with a retrospective effect, even though, it will be given within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed by this Court. The benefits will be given to this appellant from the date of appointment/date of joining whichever is later including the salary etc. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we hereby, quash and set-aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2192 of 2013 dated 26th August, 2015. Hence, this letters patent appeal is allowed and disposed of. 7. In view of final order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. Nos. Hence, this letters patent appeal is allowed and disposed of. 7. In view of final order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. Nos. 8172 of 2016, 7899 of 2016 and 7613 of 2016 are hereby also disposed of.