JUDGMENT : 1. When the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the parties submitted at the Bar that BOPEE-respondent No. 3 had already issued a Notification, dated 19.03.2018, intimating about the schedule for filing up Online preference by the candidates, competing for MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Admission, 2018 w.e.f. 22.03.2018 to 28.03.2018. Thus, in view of aforesaid development and in view of the urgency expressed, more particularly in view of the Order dated 03.03.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPASW No. 35/2018, learned counsel for the parties agreed to final adjudication of the both the petitions, involving common question of law and facts, restricting the subject-matter of the dispute to the one Issue only, as to whether amendment to Rule 17 of the J & K Reservation Rules, 2005, made in terms of SRO No. 49 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018 by respondent No. 2 in mid-process of selection would apply retrospectively or prospectively. 2. The petitioners, through the medium of instant petitions, are seeking quashment of impugned Public Notice No. 006-BOPEE of 2018 dated 03.02.2018 to the extent it pertains to Note No. 7 and declaration of Notification SRO No. 49 of 2018 dated 30th January, 2018, issued by the Government in the Social Welfare Department to the extent it tends to amend Rule 17 of the J & K Reservation Rules, 2005 as null and void and ultra vires the J & K Reservation Rules, 2005. They also seek direction to the respondents to apply the Rule 17 as amended vide Notification SRO No. 49 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018 prospectively and not to give it retrospective effect qua the NEET-PG 2018-Selection, which commenced from 31.10.2017. Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents, particularly respondent No. 3, to conduct counselling of the petitioners as well as various other candidates, who competed in the process of NEET-PG 2018 in accordance with the un-amended Rule 17 of the J & K Reservation Rules 2005 and allocate disciplines/streams/ colleges to them strictly by following the provisions of un-amended Rule 17 of the J & K Reservation Rules, 2005, in accordance with their respective merit obtained by the petitioners in the NEET-PG 2018. 3. The facts, in brief, as projected in the present writ petitions are that National Board of Examination issued a Notification for admission to MD/MS Graduate Diploma Courses 2018-Academic Session. 3. The facts, in brief, as projected in the present writ petitions are that National Board of Examination issued a Notification for admission to MD/MS Graduate Diploma Courses 2018-Academic Session. The candidates, possessing MBBS Degree/provisional MBBS pass certificate from a Medical College/Institute, duly recognised as per the provisions of Medical Council Act and having completed one of internship or are likely to complete the same on or before 31.03.2018, were eligible to apply for NEET-PG 2018 through Online Application System. The date for submission of Online Application Forms was fixed as 31.10.2017 to 27.11.2017. The date of examination was notified as 07.01.2018. And the date of declaration of result was shown as 31.01.2018. Respondent No. 3-BOPEE, vide Notification No. 76-BOPEE of 2017 dated 02.11.2017, circulated instructions regarding NEET-PG 2018, for filling up of forms-category and other certificates. The aforesaid Notification also contains that BOPEE will notify the schedule for registration/online registration of eligible candidates, only after result of NEET-PG 2018 is declared by the National Board of Examination. It is stated that J & K BOPEE issued a Public Notice bearing No. 006-BOPEE of 2018 dated 03.02.2018 intimating thereby that the eligibility of the candidates shall be determined in accordance with the amended Rule 17 issued vide SRO No. 49 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018 and any other amendment as may be carried out till the issuance of Information Brochure. 4. It is next contended by petitioners that at the time of initiation of NEET-PG 2018, i.e. in the month of October 2017, Rule 17 of J & K Reservation Rules, 2005, was applicable and in terms of said Rule 17, the candidates selected against the Open Merit Seat are to be considered for allotment of discipline/stream/college allocable to them in their respective categories on the basis of their merit and preference. The resultant discipline/stream/ college in Open Merit Category is required to be allotted to the Reserved Category candidate, who gets selected consequent upon Reserved Category candidate getting selected in the Open Merit Category. As such, in terms of Rule 17, the candidates, belonging to Reserved Category, are protected and provided the benefit of reservation in a realistic and bona-fide manner. The resultant discipline/stream/ college in Open Merit Category is required to be allotted to the Reserved Category candidate, who gets selected consequent upon Reserved Category candidate getting selected in the Open Merit Category. As such, in terms of Rule 17, the candidates, belonging to Reserved Category, are protected and provided the benefit of reservation in a realistic and bona-fide manner. But the State respondent during the period when NEET-PG 2018 was underway/midway and after declaration of the Result of the Entrance Test and before holding of counselling, has amended Rule 17 of J & K Reservation Rules, 2005, vide Notification/SRO No. 49 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018, whereby only change/ amendment in the Rule 17 is of the word “resultant” with the word “left over.” In view of the change/amendment of Rule 17, the candidates, belonging to Reserved Categories as only left-over disciplines/stream/colleges, who are not to the liking of the candidates belonging to Open Merit Category and other Reserved Category, who, because of their higher merit, get disciplines/streams/colleges of their choice, shall be allocated to petitioners and other category candidates. Thus, petitioners, who are aspirants/candidates in NEET-PG 2018, are aggrieved of amendment, as according to them the same is not applicable to the change the rule of the game or criteria in the middle of the selection process, which has already been initiated and the same being illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. 5. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that amendment to Rule 17 will apply prospectively. It is submitted that even the Government in the General Administration Department, vide Circular No. 17-GAD of 2016 dated 14.03.2016, while dealing with a case pertaining to the selection, has issued a clarification on the advice of Government in the Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Department, which for facility of reference is reproduced here as under:- “Every law, rule, notification or order is effective prospectively unless there is an express provision for applying the same retrospectively. In other words, retrospective operation has to be expressly provided Notification SRO No. 438 of 2015 has been issued on 11th December, 2015 and shall have a prospective effect. In other words, retrospective operation has to be expressly provided Notification SRO No. 438 of 2015 has been issued on 11th December, 2015 and shall have a prospective effect. This notification will be applicable to the selections made after issuance of this Notification and the selection processes already initiated before issuance of this Notification is to be conducted as per rules in vogue before issuance of Notification SRO No. 438 of 2015.” 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that because of the amendment of Rule 17 vide Notification/SRO No. 49 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018, there is no expression with regard to the applicability of the amendment retrospectively, thus, amendment shall apply only prospectively. 7. Aggrieved of SRO No. 49 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018 and BOPEE Notification dated 03.02.2018, petitioners are assailing the same on the ground that same is violative of law and that SRO No. 49 of 2018 has not been given retrospective effect, as such, the counselling cannot be done on the basis of amended Rule 17 issued vide SRO No. 49 of 2018, as the process of selection has been initiated prior to issuance of SRO 49, i.e., four months back and even the Result was declared prior to issuance of SRO No. 49/2018 and the eligibility is required to be determined with reference to last date of application by National Board of Examination, i.e. 27.11.2017 and according to un-amended Rule 17 of J & K Reservation Rules 2005, as the rule of the game cannot be changed mid-way rather at the conclusion of the selection process. 8. Objections have been filed by the respondents. Respondent no. 2, in his objections, has contended that Government of Jammu and Kashmir is empowered by the J & K Reservation Act to amend the Rules and the same is applicable from the date SRO came into force. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that writ petitions have been filed merely on the grounds of assumption and presumption and this Court in the writ jurisdiction proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has very limited scope to the judicial review. 9. In the objections filed by BOPEE-respondent No. 3, it is contended that National Board of Examination will be only providing data of candidates and marks scored by them in the NEET-PG 2018 to the State Governments/Counselling authorities without applying the Reservation Rules. 9. In the objections filed by BOPEE-respondent No. 3, it is contended that National Board of Examination will be only providing data of candidates and marks scored by them in the NEET-PG 2018 to the State Governments/Counselling authorities without applying the Reservation Rules. It is also contended that role of respondent No. 4, i.e. National Board of Examination, is only limited to the conduct of examination and it has no role to play with regard to the preparation of the State Merit List. However, Public Notice dated 03.02.2018 issued by respondent no. 3 has mentioned that SRO No. 49 of 2018 will be applicable to the candidates applying for admission to PG courses of 2018, thus, SRO No. 49 of 2018 is applicable in the case in hand because Information Brochure 2018 for registration, counselling and preference for filing and admission process for the MD/MS/PG-Diploma/ MDS courses of 2018 has been issued much after the date of issuance of SRO No. 49 of 2018. 10. Respondents 5 to 8 in their objections have contended that Rule 17 of Reservation Rules, 2005 is not a Rule, which govern the selection process, but is a Rule governing reservation for the purpose of allotment of disciplines/streams/colleges to the candidates on the basis of merit and preference and that apart, the conduct of NEET by National Board of Examination, insofar as State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, is nothing but only an eligibility test and cannot even be termed as Entrance Test, inasmuch as the State of Jammu and Kashmir is not a party to the Central Quota of 50% of the total MD/MS-PG Seats in all the Government Colleges of the Country, therefore, the result of NEET Examination conducted by National Board of Examination is in two parts, i.e. for 50% Central Pool Quota, the National Board of Examination has issued the final merit list, whereas for the remaining 50% seats in Govt. Medical Colleges and even minority institutions including Private Medical Colleges the National Board of Examination has issued only cut-off merit category-wise, which is not the final merit list and the final merit list is to be prepared by the respective State Governments or bodies or authorities constituted by the different State Government and insofar as State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned by the BOPEE and that merit list is yet to be issued, inasmuch as, different State Governments have different reservation policies and different categories. It is further stated that not only SRO No. 49 of 2018 has been issued by virtue of which Rule 17 has been amended but simultaneously another SRO has been issued on the same date by the State Government viz. SRO No. 48 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018 by virtue of which weightage is also to be given the in-service candidates, who have served in difficult areas while in the service of State of Jammu and Kashmir and who had also applied for NEET Examination, therefore, the State Merit List shall be issued by the BOPEE only after application of Reservation Rules including SRO No. 48 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018, which has not been called in question by the petitioners, inasmuch as, the BOPEE in its Information Brochure has itself made clear that the counselling shall be conducted by applying SRO 48 and 49 as well. 11. Learned counsel for respondents, in support of their arguments, have relied upon judgments passed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reported in (2014) 2 SCC 305 and 2016 (7) SCC 487 whereby it has been observed that special provisions for reservation of any category are not subject matter of the NEET nor rights of minority are in any manner affected by NEET. NEET only provides for conducting entrance test for eligibility for admission to the MBBS/BDS course. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Admittedly, Notification issued by the National Board of Examination, disclosed the date of submission of online application forms from 31.10.2017 to 27.11.2017. Petitioners filed online application forms and competed in the entrance test. NEET only provides for conducting entrance test for eligibility for admission to the MBBS/BDS course. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Admittedly, Notification issued by the National Board of Examination, disclosed the date of submission of online application forms from 31.10.2017 to 27.11.2017. Petitioners filed online application forms and competed in the entrance test. The contention of the petitioners is that once Notification of NEET 2018 has already been issued and the process was underway/midway and after declaration of the result of entrance test and before holding counselling, respondent No. 2 has issued SRO No. 49 of 2018 by virtue of which it amended Rule 17, which amendment cannot be permitted to completely destroy the whole spirit and fabric of Rule 17 of J & K Reservation Rules, 2005, as it would be in complete detrimental disadvantageous position of the candidates belonging to Reserved Category as only left over disciplines/streams/colleges, which are not to the liking of the candidates, belonging to open merit category and other reserved category categories, who, because of higher merit, get disciplines/streams/colleges of their choice, shall be allocated to the petitioners and other reserved category candidates. It is contended that after amendment of Rule 17, which has come into force w.e.f. 30.01.2018, respondent No. 3 is going to apply the said rule in the counselling process, which action of respondent No. 3 is not legally permissible inasmuch as the amended Rule 17 cannot be applied to the selection process which has already been commenced and concluded prior to coming into force of the amended Rule 17. Thus it is contended that if at all, it is allowed to carry in the present selection process, it amounts to change of rule/criteria in the middle of the selection process and same would be illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. 14. The precise objections raised by the respondents is that result of NEET Examination conducted by the National Board of Examination is in two parts, i.e. 50% Central Pool Quota, the National Board of Examination has issued the final merit list, whereas the remaining 50% seats in Govt. 14. The precise objections raised by the respondents is that result of NEET Examination conducted by the National Board of Examination is in two parts, i.e. 50% Central Pool Quota, the National Board of Examination has issued the final merit list, whereas the remaining 50% seats in Govt. Medical Colleges and even minority institutions including Private Medical Colleges the National Board of Examination has issued only cut off merit category-wise which is not the final merit list and the final merit list is to be prepared by the respective State Governments or bodies or authorities constituted by the different State Government, and in so far as State of Jammu and Kashmir by the BOPEE and that merit list is yet to be issued, being different State Government have different reservation policies and different reserved categories and not only that different percentage of reservation of seats for different categories, therefore, SRO No. 49 of 2018 issued by virtue of which Rule 17 has been amended prior to the issuance of Public Notice and, accordingly, counselling has to be conducted by applying the said amendment. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued in rebuttal that right to secure admission got crystalized on the basis of their performance in the NEET- PG 2018 Examination. The date for online submission of application forms was w.e.f. 31.10.2017 to 27.11.2017. The examination was conducted on 07.01.2018 and the result was declared on 23.01.2018, whereas SRO No. 49 of 2018 came into force w.e.f. 31.01.2018, i.e. after conclusion of selection process and declaration of result. BOPEE issued Public Notice dated 03.02.2018, wherein in terms of Note 7, it was prescribed that the eligibility of the candidates was to be determined in accordance with the rules including the amendments carried out by the State Government in the reservation rules/other rules vide SRO No. 48 of 2018 and SRO No. 49 of 2018 dated 30.01.2018 and any other amendment as may be carried out till issuance of the Information Brochure, as such, argument of learned counsel for the BOPEE is that process will be started once Information Brochure will be issued by the Board, therefore, admission will be on the basis of amended Rule 17. To controvert his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that since online application forms were invited on 31.10.2017 and last date of submission of application form was 27.11.2017, as such, right of the candidate will be determined on the basis of rules prevailing at the time of submission of application forms and not thereafter and at the most at the time of declaration of result which in the instant case is 23.01.2018, i.e. much before coming into being of SRO in question. 16. In support of their arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently relied upon judgment of Gauhati High Court reported in Bikram Roy and Others vs. State of Assam and Others, AIR 2018 Guhati 13 wherein somewhat identical issue has arisen and adjudicated upon. Though in that case question pertains to the application of Admission Rule Gazetted vide Notification dated 11.07.2017 regarding quota of the State. For facility of reference paragraph Nos. 14, 15, 16, 26, 27, 30 and 31 are reproduced here as under:- “14. It is important to be aware that the right to secure admission in the 2017 session, was based entirely on the performance in the Entrance Test and such right got crystalized through declaration of NEET (UG) 2017 examination result on 1.7.2017, followed by the DME's Educational Notice of 3.7.2017. Now the question is whether the Admission Rules, 2017 gazetted on 11.7.2017 should be applied for the aspirants, whose right to secure admission perhaps got crystallized, on the basis of their performance in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. 15. The Admission Rules, 2017 stipulates that it shall come into force when it is published in the official gazette and as can be seen, the 2017 Rules was published in the Gazette on 11.7.2017. The sub-clause (2) of clause 1 specified that the new norms shall be applicable from the academic session 2017 to regulate the admission to the MBBS/BDS Courses in the Medical/Dental Colleges of Assam. As earlier noted, the admission process for the 2017 session, commenced on 30.1.2017 with the CBSE's notice for the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. The DME, Assam under the Education Notice of 8.2.2017, had directed the aspirants from the State, to apply for the Assam Quota Seats, through the NEET (UG) 2017 examination conducted by the CBSE. As earlier noted, the admission process for the 2017 session, commenced on 30.1.2017 with the CBSE's notice for the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. The DME, Assam under the Education Notice of 8.2.2017, had directed the aspirants from the State, to apply for the Assam Quota Seats, through the NEET (UG) 2017 examination conducted by the CBSE. Therefore, unless the Admission Rules, 2017 commencing from 11.7.2017 is retrospectively applied to the process which started 6 months earlier, the norms under the Rule 3(1)(c) of the Admission Rules, 2017 cannot be made applicable for the aspirants, whose right to admission might have got crystallized, through declaration of results in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination on 23.6.2017 based upon which, the State Merit List was released on 1.7.2017. 16. The Legislature is empowered to enact laws with retrospective operation. But here we are not dealing with any legislation but norms formulated by the Executive, where the power for retrospective change, would be severely circumscribed. Unless the authority of the Executive to make retrospective change of norms, is demonstrated without any ambiguity, the Court will not permit extinguishment of vested right through executive fiat. .......................................... 26. The notice issued by the DME, Assam on 8.2.2017 clearly reflected that all aspirants for the Assam Quote MBBS/BDS Seats should apply through the NEET (UG) 2017 examination, to be conducted by the CBSE and therefore, there is no ambiguity on commencing the process of admission for the session 2017, well before the Admission Rules, 2017 was gazetted on 11.7.2017. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that obstruction to admission cannot be caused under Rule 3(1)(c) of the Admission Rules, 2017 for those, who might have acquired their right of admission, on the basis of their performance in the entrance examination and the publication of the State Merit List on 1.7.2017. 27. Consequently, if the admission for the 2017 session is not to be governed by the Admission Rules, 2017, the question is which norm will govern the admission of the aspirants, who appeared in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. For answering this issue, one has to take into account that this Court under the judgment dated 28.9.2016 in the WP (C) No. 4904/2016, Hiralal Choudhury vs. State of Assam and Others, struck down the substituted Rule under the amendment notification of 30.1.2016 in the 2015 Regulation. For answering this issue, one has to take into account that this Court under the judgment dated 28.9.2016 in the WP (C) No. 4904/2016, Hiralal Choudhury vs. State of Assam and Others, struck down the substituted Rule under the amendment notification of 30.1.2016 in the 2015 Regulation. It is relevant to note that Rule 3(1)(c) as originally incorporated in the 2015 Regulation, is not touched by any judgment of the High Court. Therefore when the substituted Rule 3(1)(c) under the amended notification of 30.1.2016 was struck down, the admission for the litigants should have been considered under the originally enacted Rule 3(1)(c) of the 2015 Regulation. But this was not done only because of the mandamus issued by the Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment dated 28.9.2016 in Hiralal Choudhury (supra). Therefore, it rationally follows that the 2015 Regulation should govern the admission, in the current year. It is accordingly held that the 2015 Regulation must be the basis for admission, in the current year for those, who applied for admission, by appearing in the NEET (UG) 2017 examination. .......................................... 30. The Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779 had declared that while applying for any course of study, the person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date for application. The period for application for this year's admission was scheduled during 30.1.2017 to 1.3.2017 and hence the eligibility for the petitioner must be with reference to the last date of application i.e. 1.3.2017. Therefore, the admission must be granted on the basis of the norms, prevalent on the date when the aspirants could last apply and logically therefore, the new Rules cannot apply for admission in the current session. 31. Following the above conclusion, the respondents are directed to ensure admission to the State Quota Seats for the petitioners to the MBBS/BDS courses in the 2017 session, in accordance with their respective ranking in the entrance test. As the mop-up round by the admission authorities is scheduled between 26th - 28th August 2017 as per the Educational Notice dated 3.7.2017 of the DME, the respondents should re-determine the eligibility with reference to the 2015 Regulation and then allow admission of the eligible aspirants without enforcing the Rule 3(1)(c) of the Admission Rules, 2017, against them. As the mop-up round by the admission authorities is scheduled between 26th - 28th August 2017 as per the Educational Notice dated 3.7.2017 of the DME, the respondents should re-determine the eligibility with reference to the 2015 Regulation and then allow admission of the eligible aspirants without enforcing the Rule 3(1)(c) of the Admission Rules, 2017, against them. However it is made clear that the norms under the 2015 Regulation will have to be satisfied by the aspirants. It is ordered accordingly.” 17. Learned counsel also relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Ramesh Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi and Another, AIR 2010 SC 3714 , Himani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi, AIR 2008 SC 2103 , State of Bihar and Others vs. Mithilesh Kumar, (2010) 13 SCC 467 and Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and Another vs. Tage Habung and Others, AIR 2013 SC 160 to contend that the change in the rules of game once it has started has been held to be bad and illegal and it is not permissible for the employer to change the criteria of selection in the midst of selection process. Learned counsel further relied upon case titled P. Mohanan Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Others, AIR 2007 SC 2840 wherein it is held that it is now well settled that ordinarily rules which were prevailing at the time, when the vacancies arose would be adhered to and the qualification must be fixed at that time. The eligibility criteria as also the procedures as was prevailing on the date of vacancy should ordinarily be followed. Thus, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that keeping in view the catena of judgments respondents 2 and 3 are liable to be directed to hold and culminate the NEET-PG 2018 in accordance with unlamented Rule 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005. 18. The general rule is that the vacancies, which exist on the date of amendment of Rules have to be filled up in accordance with the Rules, as they stood prior to amendment, provided the amendment is not retrospective. If the amendment made in the Rules is retrospective, even the vacancies which exist on the date of amendment are also required to be filled up as per amended rules. If the amendment made in the Rules is retrospective, even the vacancies which exist on the date of amendment are also required to be filled up as per amended rules. Thus, it is a settled law that the selection should be made according to the rules existing on the date of the Notification, unless the same are amended retrospectively. In the present case, SRO No. 49 of 2018 cannot be said to have retrospective effect in absence of making any appropriate provision in it. The same view has been expressed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SWP No. 2422/2000, titled Parmodh Kumar vs. J & K Public Service Commission, decided on 23.01.2001, relevant portion whereof is important to be reproduced hereunder: “SRO No. 208 of 1999 is in the nature of subordinate legislation. Appropriate authority was well aware that many cases may be in the pipe line on the date of its issuance. If it was intended to make it retrospectively applicable, they would have made a provision in the SRO itself by making appropriate provision in it. This has admittedly not been done. Thus it can be inferred that it was never intended to be made retrospectively applicable as was urged by Shri Mehta.” 19. In N.T. Devin Katti vs. Karnataka PSC, (1990) 3 SCC 157 , a notification dated 23.5.1975 was published inviting applications for recruitment to 50 posts of Tehsildars. The notification also gave details of the posts that had been reserved for various categories. The Rules which were prevailing at that time were to apply to the appointments. A select list was thereafter prepared making reservation in terms of the instructions contained in Government Order dated 6.9.1969. The State Government refused to approve the list on the ground that reservation should have been made in accordance with the directions and procedure contained in a subsequent order dated 9.7.1975. The Government directed preparation of a fresh list of successful candidates by making reservations in terms of the subsequent order issued by it on 9.7.1975. The select list was revised accordingly. Since the names of the appellants did not figure in the revised list, they challenged the validity of the Government order as well as the revised list. The petitions, filed by them were, however, dismissed by a Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka. The select list was revised accordingly. Since the names of the appellants did not figure in the revised list, they challenged the validity of the Government order as well as the revised list. The petitions, filed by them were, however, dismissed by a Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka. Accepting the contention of the appellants, the Supreme Court, inter-alia, held as under: “11............Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing Rules or Government Orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules and Government Orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selections in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter if the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules..................if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the Rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement..........Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature.” 20. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature.” 20. Referring to the earlier decisions, the Supreme Court further observed in paragraph 13 of the judgment as under: “It is a well accepted principle of construction that a statutory rule or Government Order is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Where proceedings are initiated for selection by issuing advertisement, the selection should normally be regulated by the then existing rules and Government Orders and any amendment of the rules or the Government Order pending the selection should not affect the validity of the selection made by the Selecting Authority or the Public Service Commission unless the amended Rules or the amended Government Orders, issued in exercise of its statutory power either by express provision or by necessary intendment indicate that amended Rules shall be applicable to the pending selections.” 21. In B.L. Gupta vs. M.C.D. (1998) 9 SCC 223 , the main contention before the Supreme Court was whether the vacancies, which had arisen prior to amendment of the Rules, could only be filled as per the Rules as they stood prior to amendment. Dealing with the contention, Supreme Court, inter-alia, held as under: “9. When the statutory rules had been framed in 1978, the vacancies had to be filled only according to the said Rules. The Rules of 1995 have been held to be prospective by the High Court and in our opinion this was the correct conclusion. This being so, the question which arises is whether the vacancies which had arisen earlier than 1995 can be filled as per the 1995 Rules. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Mehta to a decision of this Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission. In that case after referring to the earlier decisions in the cases of Y.V. Rangaiah vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao, P. Ganeshwar Rao vs. State of A.P. and A.A. Calton vs. Director of Education, it was held by this Court that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. Though the High Court has referred to these judgments, but for the reasons which are not easily decipherable its applicability was only restricted to 79 and not 171 vacancies, which admittedly existed. This being the correct legal position, the High Court ought to have directed the respondent to declare the results for 171 posts of Assistant Accountants and not 79 which it had done.” 22. It is, thus, clear that the authority, issuing an advertisement or framing the recruitment rules, has a right to amend the terms and conditions of appointment to the post and also to amend the recruitment rules, but no such amendment shall affect the selection process which is already commenced prior to the amendment unless the amendment is made retrospectively. 23. After threadbare discussion of aforesaid judgments and after perusing various judgments regarding retrospective and prospective effect of the Rules, produced and cited by the learned counsel for the parties, it comes to fore that eligibility must be with reference to the last date of application form, therefore, admission must be granted on the basis of norms prevalent on the date when aspirants/candidates apply and thus ratio of the said judgments cover the case of the petitioners. In the present case online applications were invited by the NEET on 31.10.2017 and last date of submission of application form was 27.11.2017, as such, right of the candidate will be determined on the basis of Rules prevalent at the time of submission of application form and not thereafter and at the most at the time of declaration of result, which, in the instant case, is 23.01.2018, as such, SRO No. 49 of 2018 which came into force later in time on 31.01.2018 cannot govern the present case. Since petitioners and other candidates, who applied pursuant to the Notification, were conscious about the rule position prevailing at that relevant period of time and on the basis thereof had applied thereto, as such, their cases are required to be governed by the un-amended Rule 17 of J & K Reservation Rules 2005 and the counselling, therefore, is required to be done on the basis of un-amended Rule 17. 24. Viewed thus, writ petitions are disposed of and Public Notice bearing No. 006-BOPEE of 2018 dated 03.02.2018 to the extent it pertains to Note No. 7 is quashed. 24. Viewed thus, writ petitions are disposed of and Public Notice bearing No. 006-BOPEE of 2018 dated 03.02.2018 to the extent it pertains to Note No. 7 is quashed. The respondents are directed to conduct counselling of the petitioners as well as other candidates, who competed in the process of National Eligibility Entrance Test PG 2018 in accordance with un-amended Rule 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 and allocate the disciplines/streams/Colleges strictly by following the provisions of un-amended Rule 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 in accordance with their respective merit secured by them in the NEET-PG 2018. 25. Disposed of along with connected MP's if any.