JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. In all these writ petitions, which have been filed on behalf of various Committees of Management, the issue raised is common. 2. In all these cases, the Committee of Management had initiated a process for selection and appointment on the posts of Assistant Teacher (L.T.) Grade, which were lying vacant. In some cases, teachers have already been selected and recommendations have been given to the Education Authority for issuing of appointment letters in their favour. Meanwhile, the process has been stalled as the State Government had taken a stand that after the initiation of the process, a Model Code of Conduct came into effect on 04.01.2017 due to the coming elections to the State Legislative Assembly and thereafter, an amendment has also been brought in Regulations, 2009 framed under the provisions of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 bringing certain other qualifications, where primarily the quality points for interview were reduced from 25 points to 10 points. 3. In all these cases, the petitioners plead that since the process has already been completed, the result be announced. 4. As far as Model Code of Conduct is concerned, it does not survive as presently there is no Model Code of Conduct and cannot be a reason for stalling the selection process. The second ground taken by the State Government is that the amendment has been made in the Regulations. As far as amendment is concerned, since it has been brought after the process for making appointment and selection was initiated, it will work prospectively and not retrospectively. In other words, it will not act on such selection process which has already been initiated. 5. The petitioners have also relied upon the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. R. Dayal and others, reported in (1997) 10 SCC 419 , where under similar circumstances vacancies which have fallen prior to the amendment were held to be governed by un-amended Rules. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “8. Therefore, it is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that while selecting officers, minimum requisite qualifications and experience for promotion specified in the relevant column, should be taken into consideration against vacancies existing as on 1st April of the year of selection. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “8. Therefore, it is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that while selecting officers, minimum requisite qualifications and experience for promotion specified in the relevant column, should be taken into consideration against vacancies existing as on 1st April of the year of selection. But since the Rules came to be amended and the amendment became effective with immediate effect and clause (11-B) of Rule 24-A indicates that options have been given to the Government or the appointing Authority, as the case may be, to revise the select list as existing as per the law as on the date of the appointment or as may be directed by a competent court, selection is required to be made by the concerned DPC. An appointment made, after selection as per the procedure, to the vacancies existing prior to the amendment, is valid. But the question is whether the selection would be made, in the case of appointment to the vacancies which admittedly arose after the amendment of the Rules came into force, according to the amended Rules or in terms of Rule 9 read with Rules 23 and 24-A, as mentioned hereinbefore. This Court has considered the similar question in para 9 of the judgment above-cited. This Court has specifically laid that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not by the amended Rules. Accordingly, this Court had held that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment to the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not the amended Rules. As a necessary corollary, the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled in accordance with the law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose. Undoubtedly, the selection came to be made prior to the amendment of the Rules in accordance with law then existing since the anticipated vacancies also must have been taken into consideration in the light of Rule 9 of the Rules. But after the amended Rules came into force, necessarily the amended Rules would be required to be applied for and given effect to. But, unfortunately, that has not been done in the present case. But after the amended Rules came into force, necessarily the amended Rules would be required to be applied for and given effect to. But, unfortunately, that has not been done in the present case. The two courses are open to the Government or the appointing authority, viz., either to make temporary promotions for the ensuing financial year until the DPC meets or in exercise of the power under Rule 24-A (11-B), they can revise the panel already prepared in accordance with the Rules and make appointments in accordance therewith.” (emphasis provided) 6. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. A mandamus is hereby issued to the respondent authorities that where the process has been completed and recommendation has been given to the Education Authority, let the recommendation be acted upon. 7. It is, however, made clear that this Court has only observed that Model Code of Conduct will not come in their way. It does not mean that if there is any other shortcoming or illegality in the selection process, the respondent authorities will in any manner be restrained from passing appropriate orders. However, let the needful be done as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.