Order : 1. This civil application has been preferred by the original respondents of W.P.(S) No.5605 of 2012. 2. The writ petition was instituted by respondent no.1 with a prayer therein that the result for the examination taken by the respondent-State authorities in pursuance of public advertisement no. 1 of 2009 may be declared. This advertisement was for the post of Home Guards and the learned Single Judge has given a direction to declare the result within the stipulated time. This order was passed by the learned Single Judge while finally disposing of the writ petition on 8th October, 2012 for the review of which the present application has been preferred by original respondent no.1. 3. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the fact that there is change in the selection criteria and the qualification for the post in question, the change is vital and substantial. The change has direct nexus with the selection criteria for the police because in selection of police/constable there is reservation of 50% of Home Guards and therefore, Home Guards must be selected with a higher qualification like police so that when police are to be selected better Home Guards are available to the State. This vital change in selection criteria for the post of Home Guards has resulted into dropping of public advertisement no.1 of 2009 dated 11th July, 2009 and result of not a single candidate has been declared. Applicant may be one of the candidates, who has appeared in the examination held in pursuance of public advertisement no. 1 of 2009, but, the fact remains that the State Government has all power to drop the public advertisement. 4. Whenever there is a “power” vested in the Government, there is no corresponding right vested in the public at large and there is no public duty vested in the Government and hence, no writ of mandamus can be issued for the alleged breach of the public duty. Thus, under the prerogative power of the State public advertisement no. 1 of 2009 dated 11th July, 2009 has been dropped and correspondingly, there is no duty vested in the State to declare the result of the examination taken under public advertisement no. 1 of 2009. This aspect of matter was not properly highlighted when writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5605 of 2012 was finally disposed of vide order dated 11th October, 2012. 1 of 2009. This aspect of matter was not properly highlighted when writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5605 of 2012 was finally disposed of vide order dated 11th October, 2012. The facts stated by the counsel for the State are very vital facts and affect the very root of the case and hence, by modifying the order passed by this Court dated 8th October, 2012, the writ petition preferred by the original petitioner is hereby, dismissed mainly on the following grounds: (a) The State Government has dropped public advertisement no. 1 of 2009; (b) The result of not a single candidate has been declared of the examination taken in pursuance of public advertisement no. 1 of 2009; (c) There is no violation of right vested in the petitioner nor there is violation of public duty by the State; (d) There is no prejudice caused to the respondent (original petitioner); 5. The new selection process will be as per the Rules enacted by the respondent-State authorities for the selection of Home Guards. This Rule has been enacted in the year 2014 and hence, the order, passed by this Court dated 8th October, 2012 in W.P.(S) No. 5605 of 2012 is modified to the aforesaid effect and the order dated 8th October, 2012 is hereby, recalled. 6. This civil review is allowed and writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5605 of 2012 is hereby, dismissed. Petition dismissed.