JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. L.P.A. No. 658 of 2015 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners against the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2013, whereby, the prayer for appointment on the post of Associate Professor in Telecom Engineering, in pursuance of public advertisement no. 8 of 2007 dated 22nd June, 2007, has not been granted by the learned Single Judge. Factual Matrix: A Public advertisement was issued by the respondent-State authorities bearing Advertisement No. 8 of 2007 dated 22 June, 2007, for several posts including the post of Assistant Professor in Telecom Engineering. The said advertisement is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this L.P.A. In pursuance of the aforesaid public advertisement, applications were preferred by these two appellants (original petitioners) who were already working as Lecturer in B.I.T., Sindri. Thereafter, selection process was started by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as J.P.S.C. for the sake of brevity). These appellants appeared in all the tests including written as well as viva-voce test. Their names were recommended by the J.P.S.C. on 02.12.2011 (Annexure 4 to the memo of this LPA) for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Telecom Engineering branch on the basis of rules and regulations prevailing as on date of advertisement. It further appears from the facts of the case that All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter to be referred to as AICTE) has issued a Notification on 5.3.2010 that for the post of Associate Professor, a candidate must have Ph.D. Degree on the date of application. This notification was adopted by the State of Jharkhand on 31st March, 2012, and the post of Assistant Professor is now re-designated as Associate Professor. Thus, the selection process was started with advertisement dated 22.6.2007 and the written as well as viva-voce tests were completed by December, 2011. Before December, 2011, names of several candidates were recommended for their appointment by the JPSC on different dates like 7.9.2011 and 2.12.2011 etc. It has been orally submitted by counsel for the appellants that the recommendation made by the JPSC for the post of Assistant Professor dated 7.9.2011, has partly been operated and some candidates have also been given appointment letters on the basis of old rules, applicable as on date of advertisement. It has been orally submitted by counsel for the appellants that the recommendation made by the JPSC for the post of Assistant Professor dated 7.9.2011, has partly been operated and some candidates have also been given appointment letters on the basis of old rules, applicable as on date of advertisement. These candidates are: (a) Mithilesh Kumar and (b) Deo Kumar Tanti have been appointed as Assistant professor in the year 2013. Thus, the recommendations of the JPSC have been operated for few of the candidates on the basis of earlier rules applicable to the candidates as on date of advertisement i.e. as on 22nd June, 2007, whereas, for few of the candidates the respondents are denying the appointment mainly on the ground that now, after advertisement and after the selection process has already been commenced and completed, the rules for the post have been changed and, therefore, these appellants (original petitioners) have preferred W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2013 which has not been allowed by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this letters patent appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners. 2. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the appellants: (i) Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submitted that the public advertisement no. 8 of 2007 was issued on 22.6.2007, for the post of Assistant Professor in several branches of Engineering including Telecom Engineering. These appellants had applied for the said posts. The selection process was commenced by J.P.S.C. and also viva-voce tests were completed and these appellants were found successful in comparison to other candidates for the appointment and, therefore, their names were also recommended by the JPSC. The recommendations were made on different dates by the JPSC depending upon the completion of the selection process. One such recommendation is dated 7.9.2011 and another is 2nd December, 2011 for these two appellants. (ii) It has further been submitted that the candidates whose names have been recommended by the JPSC, for the post of Assistant Professor, on the basis of the rules applicable as on date of advertisement and on the basis of the rules applicable to the candidates during the process of selection. These recommendations have partly been accepted by the State of Jharkhand and few candidates have also been appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, out of the list of recommendation dated 7.9.2011. These recommendations have partly been accepted by the State of Jharkhand and few candidates have also been appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, out of the list of recommendation dated 7.9.2011. Thus, the recommendations of the JPSC have been operated by the State of Jharkhand partly for few candidates whereas, for other candidates like these appellants objection has been raised that now, after advertisement and after selection process is completed by JPSC, the rules have been changed for the post of Associate Professor. Now the post of Assistant Professor is converted into Associate Professor. These new rules are not applicable to these candidates because they were accepted by the State of Jharkhand on 31st March, 2012, whereas, the selection process was completed by the JPSC much earlier and a part of the recommendation of JPSC has also been operated by the State of Jharkhand. (iii) Counsel for the appellants (original petitioners) 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 appellants 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. Vide C.C. No. 3833 of 2016 was preferred by the State which was dismissed vide order dated 4.3.2016. (iv) On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by counsel for the appellants that once advertisement is published, the selection process has already been commenced and when the JPSC has already recommended the names of the candidates along with these two appellants for their appointment on 2.12.2011 and when the State of Jharkhand has accepted few recommendation from the recommendations of the JPSC dated 7.9.2011, especially for Md. Abul Kalam and Mr. Deo Kumar Tanti and when they have also been appointed as Assistant Professor on the basis of the earlier rules, the new rules adopted by the State of Jharkhand on 31.3.2012, cannot be made applicable to the candidates who have applied in pursuance of the public advertisement dated 22.6.2007 and whose names have also been recommended on 2.12.2011. Deo Kumar Tanti and when they have also been appointed as Assistant Professor on the basis of the earlier rules, the new rules adopted by the State of Jharkhand on 31.3.2012, cannot be made applicable to the candidates who have applied in pursuance of the public advertisement dated 22.6.2007 and whose names have also been recommended on 2.12.2011. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned single judge while dismissing the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2013, preferred by these appellants and hence, the said judgment deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 3. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the State: (i) Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that a Notification was issued by AICTE on 5.3.2010 that for the post of Associate Professor, candidates must possess Ph.D. Degree as on date of application. This Notification was accepted by the State of Jharkhand on 31.3.2012. As the appointment letters have not been given to these two appellants, the newly changed qualifications are applicable to these appellants, despite the fact that they are the candidates who have applied for the post in pursuance of the public advertisement dated 22.6.2007 and despite the fact that selection process has commenced and completed and though the recommendations have been made by the JPSC on 2.12.2011. (ii) It has further been submitted that selected candidates have no vested right to the appointment and the counsel for the State relied upon decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in: (1) (1991) 3 SCC 47 (Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India) (2) (2010) 6 SCC 614 (Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and Another Vs. K.Shyam Kumar and others) (3) (2012) 1 JCR 298 (SC) (Parmender Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India) (2) (2010) 6 SCC 614 (Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and Another Vs. K.Shyam Kumar and others) (3) (2012) 1 JCR 298 (SC) (Parmender Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.) On the basis of aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by counsel for the State that even if, the candidate is selected he has no right to be appointed and, hence, even though the name of these two candidates have been recommended by the JPSC on 2.12.2011, but, the qualification for the said post has been changed and the said change is accepted by the State of Jharkhand on 31.3.2012, the newly changed qualification, rules are applicable to these two appellants and hence, the learned single judge should not have given the direction that the claim of these appellants shall be considered by the respondent-State because there is no question of any consideration with respect to these two appellants because they have not possess qualification required for appointment on the post of Associate Professor and hence, to that extent, the direction given by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) no. 2361 of 2013 dated 26th August, 2015, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 4. Reasons: The issue involved in this letters patent appeal is about change of rules of the selection for the post of Assistant Professor in Telecom Engineering (now the said post is renamed as Associate Professor) (I) A Public advertisement was published on 22.6.2007 being advertisement no. 8 of 2007, for the post of Assistant Professor and for several Branches of Engineering like Mechanical Engineering, Telecom Engineering etc. Several candidates applied for these posts. Selection process was started by Jharkhand Public Service Commission. After the selection process is over, JPSC has to recommend the names of suitable candidates. The recommendations were made on different dates looking to the completion of the selection process. (II) JPSC recommended the names of suitable candidates in installments i.e. vide list dated 7.9.2011 and 2nd December, 2011. The recommendation made by the JPSC dated 7.9.2011 has partly been operated by the State of Jharkhand and more particularly for: (a) Md. Abul Kalam who had applied for the post of Electrical Engineering and has been appointed on the post of Assistant Professor. (b) Deo Kumar Tanti has also been appointed as an Assistant Professor. Thus, the recommendations made by the JPSC have been partly operated. Abul Kalam who had applied for the post of Electrical Engineering and has been appointed on the post of Assistant Professor. (b) Deo Kumar Tanti has also been appointed as an Assistant Professor. Thus, the recommendations made by the JPSC have been partly operated. (III) Mithilesh Kumar has preferred a writ petition and against the order of the said writ petition, Letters Patent Appeal No. 151 of 2014 was also filed to get his appointment on the post of re-named post viz. Associate Professor which was allowed vide order dated 16.6.2015, by a Division Bench of this Court, against which S.L.P./C.C.No. 3833 of 2016 was filed by the State which was dismissed vide order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this candidate was appointed as Associate Professor-renamed post mainly on the ground that the rules of selection which were changed after advertisement and after completion of the selection process, are not applicable to the candidate who has already undergone the selection process. Similar are the facts of the present case. These two candidates have also applied under the very same advertisement no. 8 of 2007 dated 22.6.2007, but, for another Branch of Engineering. Here also JPSC has completed the selection process and has recommended the name of the selected candidates, found suitable by JPSC with a competitive merits of other candidates. Hence, the changed rules for the selection of the post of Associate Professor, cannot be made applicable to these candidates. (IV) Jharkhand State has adopted AICTE recommendation on 31.3.2012 whereas, the JPSC already recommended the names on 2.12.2011. (V) 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. 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) (VI) 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. 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. 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. xxxx 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) (VII) 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. 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. 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/weightage 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, nonexistent. 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) (VIII) In view of the aforesaid decisions, once the selection process has already been commenced and completed, the changed rules for the post in question cannot be made applicable to these candidates for whom the selection process has been completed. (IX) Counsel for the State has relied upon the decisions as stated hereinabove mainly on the point that selected candidates have no right to be appointed. This contention is not accepted in view of the facts of the present case mainly for the following reasons: (a) It ought to be kept in mind that when the Public Service Commission whereas, the State or Union is recommending the name of the selected candidates looking to the comparative merits of the other candidates and, if such recommendations are partly made operational, now, the State of Jharkhand can not say that for rest of the candidates, new rules of selection will be applicable. (b) J.P.S.C. has recommended the name of the selected candidates in installments i.e. by recommendation dated 7.9.2011 as well as by recommendation dated 2.12.2011. Out of recommendation dated 7.9.2011, Md. Abul Kalam has been given appointment in the year 2013, on the basis of old rules. Similarly, one Mr. Deo Kumar Tanti has also been given appointment on the basis of the earlier rules applicable as on date of advertisement (22.6.2007) and on the basis of the rules applicable during the process of selection. Out of recommendation dated 7.9.2011, Md. Abul Kalam has been given appointment in the year 2013, on the basis of old rules. Similarly, one Mr. Deo Kumar Tanti has also been given appointment on the basis of the earlier rules applicable as on date of advertisement (22.6.2007) and on the basis of the rules applicable during the process of selection. (c) Thus, the JPSC has recommended the names of the candidates on the basis of the rules applicable as on date of advertisement and as applicable during the process of selection. Thereafter, the State of Jharkhand has adopted recommendation of the AICTE dated 5.3.2010 on 31.3.2012. Thus, much after completion of the selection process and much after the recommendations were made by the JPSC, new norms/rules for the post in question was adopted by the State of Jharkhand. In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions, new rules of selection cannot be made applicable to the candidates who have applied under the public advertisement, issued in the month of June, 2007 for which selection process has also been completed latest by December, 2011. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by these two appellants. (d) Counsel for the respondent–State has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in (2012) 1 JCR, 298 (Parmender Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.) The facts of that case are absolutely different because in that case AICTE has changed the rules for selection, on the post of Primary/Assistant Teacher on the date of advertisement, but, in the facts of the present case, the rules/norms of the selection has been changed after the advertisement and after the completion of the selection process and hence, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in (2012) 1 JCR 298 (Parmender Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. (e) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Asha Kaul and another vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in (1993)2 SCC 573 in paragraph no. 7 which is as under: “7. …...... It is equally not open to the Government to approve a part of the list and disapprove the balance. (e) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Asha Kaul and another vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in (1993)2 SCC 573 in paragraph no. 7 which is as under: “7. …...... It is equally not open to the Government to approve a part of the list and disapprove the balance. In this case, it may be remembered that the Government itself had asked for a list of twenty and the Commission had sent a list of twenty. (We are not concerned with the waiting list sent by the Commission, at this stage.) It could not have been approved in part and rejected in part. The number of vacancies available on the date of approval and publication of the list is not material. By merely approving the list of twenty, there was no obligation upon the Government to appoint them forthwith. Their appointment depended upon the availability of vacancies. A reading of Rule 41 makes this aspect clear. The list remains valid for one year from the date of its approval and publication. If within such one year, any of the candidates therein is not appointed, the list lapses and a fresh list has to be prepared. In this case, no doubt, a number of complaints appear to have been received by the Government about the selection process. We have seen the note file placed before us. It refers to certain facts and complaint. But if the Government wanted to disapprove or reject the list, it ought to have done some within a reasonable time of the receipt of the select list and for reasons to be recorded. Not having done that and having approved the list partly (thirteen out of twenty names), they cannot put forward any ground for not approving the remaining list. Indeed, when it approved the list to the extent of thirty, it ought to have approve the entire list of twenty or to have disapprove the entire list of twenty. Not having done that and having approved the list partly (thirteen out of twenty names), they cannot put forward any ground for not approving the remaining list. Indeed, when it approved the list to the extent of thirty, it ought to have approve the entire list of twenty or to have disapprove the entire list of twenty. The objections the Government have pertain to the very process of selection i.e., to the entire list, and not individually to any of the remaining seven candidates.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decisions, if the selection panel recommended by the J.P.S.C. has already been operated partly and that too, on the basis of the earlier rules then there is no reason with the State to apply new rules to few of the rest of the candidates. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we hereby, modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2013 dated 26th August, 2015, to the effect, that these two appellants (original petitioners) are fulfilling their criteria for the post of Assistant Professor, which is now re-designated as Associate Professor and hence, they shall be given appointment on the said post. The appellants shall obtain the necessary qualification of Ph.D. within a period of seven years from the date of their appointment. This court is conveyed by the counsel for the appellants that Ph.D. Degree has also been awarded to appellant no.2 by Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag in the year 2016 whereas, appellant no.1 has already submitted his thesis with Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. New rules of selection which were adopted by the State of Jharkhand dated 31.3.2012, are not applicable to these two appellants. 6. This letters patent appeal No. 658 of 2015 is allowed and disposed of. I.A. No. 4069 of 2016 IN L.P.A. No. 145 of 2016 7. Interlocutory application no. 4069 of 2016 has been preferred for condonation of delay of 173 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal by the State of Jharkhand. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application at paragraph nos. 5,6 and 7, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. Hence, delay is condoned. 9. This interlocutory application is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 145 of 2016 10. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application at paragraph nos. 5,6 and 7, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. Hence, delay is condoned. 9. This interlocutory application is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 145 of 2016 10. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2013 dated 26th August, 2015, mainly for the reason that the rules of the selection have been changed after the advertisement was published as stated hereinabove in L.P.A. No. 658 of 2015 and also after the selection process is completed and the new rules have been adopted by the State of Jharkhand which are applicable to the respondents (as appellants of L.P.A. No. 658 of 2015) and hence, the learned Single Judge can not recommend that the cases will be considered by the State of Jharkhand. 11. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the reasons stated in L.P.A. No. 658 of 2015, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand because the new rules/norms have been adopted by the State of Jharkhand on 31.3.2012, whereas, the advertisement was given on 22.6.2007 and the J.P.S.C. has already completed the selection process and recommendations have also been made, in installments, vide list dated 7.9.2011 and 2.12.2011 and few of the recommendations have also been operated by the State of Jharkhand by giving appointment to few of the candidates on the basis of earlier rules applicable as on the date of advertisement. Hence, this court has already allowed Letters Patent Appeal No. 658 of 2015 and has held that new rules/norms are not applicable to the selection process which has already commenced and completed. The reasons given in allowing the Letters Patent Appeal no. 658 of 2016 are also the reasons for rejection of this Letters Patent Appeal. 12. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal No. 145 of 2016 is hereby dismissed. LPA No. 145 of 2016 dismissed. LPA No. 658 of 2015 allowed.