Order : Heard the Parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition to quash the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee taken in its meeting held on 08.07.2015 (Annexure-7), issued vide memo No. 863 dated 03.08.2015 and further prayer has been made for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition, is that the father of the petitioner late Ram Bahadur Singh was appointed under the respondent on 03.12.1969 and subsequently, regularized on the post of peon in 1969 in Settlement Office, Dumka, where he died in harness while in service on 21.03.2011, for which a death certificate was issued by the competent authority. After the death of his father, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities vide his representation dated 13.07.2013 for appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father, who died in harness. It is further stated that petitioner was admitted in M.P.S. High School, Sadai Bigha, Lakhirsarai, from where he obtained transfer certificate and got admitted in the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar in the academic session 2012 and a certificate to that effect was issued on 12.03.2013 along with the result. Further, it has been stated that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner in its meeting held on 08.07.2015 and on the basis the circular dated 01.05.2015, District Compassionate Appointment Committee erroneously and without considering the factual aspect of the matter, rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and hence, this writ application has been filed challenging the rejection order of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek Sinha and Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocates, in support of the claim of the petitioner, argued that for the claimed post of Peon minimum qualification of Class-VIII is required and the respondent-authorities without application of mind and in a most arbitrary and unjust manner, rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. To buttress his argument, learned senior counsel, Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocates, in support of the claim of the petitioner, argued that for the claimed post of Peon minimum qualification of Class-VIII is required and the respondent-authorities without application of mind and in a most arbitrary and unjust manner, rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. To buttress his argument, learned senior counsel, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, submitted that the basis for rejection was the circular dated 01.06.2015, issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbasha, wherein, it was communicated that all the degrees issued by the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar are not recognized w.e.f. 26.06.2014 for the purpose of appointment and promotion. Mr. Sinha, in course of his argument, laid stress on the cutoff date 26.06.2014 and vehemently argued that when the department has given the cutoff date 26.06.2014, which is prospective in nature and talks of certificates and degrees issued after 26.06.2014, then it cannot be given a retrospective effect de-recognizing the certificates issued prior to 26.06.2014 for the purpose of appointment and promotion. 5. In support of his argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:- (I) Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission Vrs. B. Swapna & Ors., reported in (2005) 4 SCC 154 , wherein in para 14 it has been held that; “14. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended rule was operative. As has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for Respondent 1 applicant it was the unamended rule which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criterion e.g. minimum percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because 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. That is because 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 the rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only.” (II) Sanjay Vishwakarma @ Sanjay Kumar & Ors. Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in [ 2008 (2) JCR 388 (Jhr.)], wherein in para 10 it has been held that; “10. ………......... They cannot be now held to be disqualified or not eligible on the ground of coming into existence of new rule in the meanwhile with effect from 15th February, 2007. The said rule cannot be applied retrospectively. The petitioners’ appointments are to be considered on the basis of the rule, which was applicable on the date when the process of appointment was initiated. New rule does not provide for its application with retrospective effect. Once the selection process is started, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed to the prejudice to the petitioners.” (III) P.D. Aggarwal & Ors. Vrs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 1987 SC 1676 , wherein in para 10 it has been held that; “15. …………… Undoubtedly, the Government has got the power under Proviso to Art. 309 of Constitution to make rules and amend the rules giving retrospective effect. Nevertheless, such retrospective amendments cannot take away the vested rights and the amendments must be reasonable, not arbitrary or discriminatory violating Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” 6. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondents-State. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State, candidly makes her submission controverting the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. In course of her argument, learned counsel for the State draws the attention of the Court to paragraphs-9, 10 and 11 of the counter-affidavit, which is reproduced herein below:- “9. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner has applied for his appointment on compassionate ground supported with documents of Matriculation Fail Transfer Certificate of M.P.S. High School, Sadaybigha, Lakhisarai along with Praveshika Pass Certificate from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. 10. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner has applied for his appointment on compassionate ground supported with documents of Matriculation Fail Transfer Certificate of M.P.S. High School, Sadaybigha, Lakhisarai along with Praveshika Pass Certificate from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. 10. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that as per the resolution issued by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide meme no. 1859 dated 02.09.2011, only Matriculate Pass candidate can get service on the post of IV grade. 11. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that as per letter no. 4786 dated 01.06.2015 issued by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhash Department, Government of Jharkhand, certificate issued by Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar are not recognized for any purpose of appointment or promotion with retrospective effect.” 7. She justifies the impugned order that in view of Annexures-A & B, the respondents-authorities have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and as such, no illegality has been committed by the respondents-authorities. 8. Learned counsel for the State placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13343 of 2011 (Reeta Srivastava Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.); and 15667 of 2011 (Rajendra Mahto Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.), reported in 2012(3) PLJR 353 and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court as per the judgment passed on 26.11.2012 in L.P.A. No. 953 of 2012. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the order passed on 19.09.2014 in W.P. (S.) No. 6100 of 2003 Reported in 2014 (4) JLJR 300 . (Smt. Kiran Kumari & Ors. Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), by the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court, wherein it has been held that qualification of Sahityalankar cannot be treated as equivalent to graduation or bachelor in Arts Degree for the purpose of claiming any benefit for promotion or appointment. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of N.T. Bevin Kath & Ors. Vs. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of N.T. Bevin Kath & Ors. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors., reported in 1990 (3) SCC 157 has held that, “it is a well accepted principle of construction that Statutory Rule or Government Order is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect.” The impugned order (Annexure-7), clearly mentions that after 26.06.2014, the certificates issued by the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, will not be taken into consideration or declare invalid though issued much prior to 26.06.2014. The author of the impugned order clearly indicates that no certificate issued by the Deoghar Vidyapith will be entertained, either issued previously or as on date, as in expressed language, it has been mentioned that the certificates issued by the Deoghar Vidyapith will be of no use and are invalid for the purpose of employment and promotion even though issued retrospectively. 10. Therefore, applying the ratio of N.T. Bevin Kath & Ors. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors. (supra) case, the impugned order requires no interference. It is also an admitted fact that in 2011 itself, the notification issued vide memo No. 1859 dated 02.09.2011 by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, clearly mentions that a requisite qualification for appointment on 4th grade post is matric pass and admittedly the petitioner is matric fail. This also supports the contention of the learned counsel for the State. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, guidelines, rules and settled principles of law, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has rightly been passed and warrants no interference, on the following grounds:- (I) The minimum qualification for appointment as per the advertisement is matric pass and on the other hand, petitioner is matric fail. (II) The notification of the Finance Department was issued in the year 2011 itself vide memo No. 1859 dated 02.09.2011 holding therein that requisite qualification for appointment on 4th grade post is matric pass and holds good and has not been turned down or set aside till date by the competent Court or withdrawn by the Government itself. (III) As per the settled law, a notification can be given retrospective effect if it is mentioned in expressed language. (III) As per the settled law, a notification can be given retrospective effect if it is mentioned in expressed language. Upon going through the impugned order, it is crystal clear that it has been mentioned in expressed language that any certificate issued by Deoghar Vidyapith, even prior to the cutoff date i.e. 26.06.2014, is not valid for the purpose of appointment or promotion. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts, this writ petition stands dismissed.