JUDGMENT & ORDER : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. 1. In this special appeal filed by the appellant, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2.5.2017 passed in SBCWP No.8979/2016 is under challenged whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners-appellant for seeking following reliefs: “(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to treat the petitioner as successful in phase-II of Stenographer Competitive Examination-2011 in accordance with the amended Rules of 1999 and rules of 1970. (b) by any appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may be directed to continue the remaining selection process of stenographer advertized on 06.09.2011 as per the notification dated 14.03.2016 amending the rules of 1999 and rules of 1970. (c) any other or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioners; (d) costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to be petitioners;” 2. Admittedly, the process of selection on the post of Stenographer was commenced in pursuance of notification dated 6.9.2011 (Annex.1) and after declaration of final result, an amendment was made on 14.3.2016 in which different criteria was inserted by way of amendment vide notification dated 14.3.2016 (Annex.9). The petitioner prayed that during process of selection, the said amendment was made in Rajasthan Subordinate Officers Ministerial Service Rules, 1999, therefore, the respondent RPSC was under obligation to follow the provision of law incorporated by way of amendment notification dated 14.3.2016. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to irrational criteria though 506 vacancies were advertised, but against 572 posts, only 113 persons were found suitable for appointment, therefore, while considering the entire aspect of the matter, the amendment was made by the government. According to learned counsel for the appellant the said amendment was required to be made applicable for the post of advertized on 6.9.2011 (Annex.1), but the respondent RPSC and State Government failed to make applicable the said criteria, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered this aspect of the matter so as to consider the prayer of the appellant made in the writ petition. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case in which the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the very important aspect of the matter that during selection process, amendment was made by the State of Rajasthan on 14.3.2016 under which the candidature of all the candidates, applied in pursuance of Annex.1 was to be considered, therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge may kindly be quashed and respondents State and RPSC may kindly be directed to apply the amendment made in the Rules of 1999 vide notification dated 14.3.2016 and complete the selection process again. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the State and RPSC vehemently argued that no amendment can be made applicable retrospectively, therefore, learned Single Judge while considering the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant held that amendment made vide notification dated 4.3.2016 (Annex.9) cannot be made applicable retrospectively. According to learned counsel for the respondents no interference is called for in this petition because contention of the petitioner-appellant is contrary to law. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the judgment impugned. Admittedly, petitioner is claiming his right of consideration in the light of amendment made in the Rajasthan Subordinate Officers Ministerial Service Rules, 1999 dated 4.3.2016 in the selection process initiated on 6.9.2011 before five years. It is beyond imagination to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that subsequent amendment can be made applicable in the process of selection, which was initiated before 5 years in the year 2011. It is settled principle of law that any amendment made in the rules can be made applicable prospectively not retrospectively unless it is expressly provided in the amendment. 7. After perusing the finding of the learned Single Judge, we have no hesitation to hold that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant because no right is created in favour of the appellant from the subsequent amendment made in the rules on 14.3.2016 so as to claim consideration for appointment under the advertisement dated 6.9.2011. 8. Consequently, this special appeal is hereby dismissed.