MADHURESH PRASAD, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. The original petitioner has approached this Court to quash order of the District Magistrate, Patna dated 01.09.2016 rejecting petitioner’s application seeking voluntary retirement from service and that his son may be appointed in his place as a Chaukidar under the provisions of Bihar Chaukidari Amendment Rule, 2014. 3. Rejection is on the ground that the son of the petitioner was not fulfilling eligibility criteria of matriculation. He was likely to acquire matriculation qualification after 31.03.2016 as per his subsisting registration for matriculation. Petitioner was to normally retire on 31.03.2016. 4. I.A. No. 8224 of 2017 has been filed for substitution since original writ petitioner died on 13.06.2017. Same is allowed. His son, namely, Rajgir Kumar may be substituted in place of the original writ petitioner. 5. The short issue which remains for consideration is whether in the absence of requisite qualification (Matriculation), claim of petitioner could have been considered under the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Amendment Rules, 2014’). 6. This Court would find that an exception has been provided by the Amendment Rules, 2014 to the normal mode of employment being by way of open advertisement. Proviso has been added to Sub Rule (7) of Rule 5 of the Bihar Chaukidar Cadre Rules, 2006 as follows:— ^^mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku fd;s tk;saxs & ¼1½ mi&fue ¼2½ esa Á;qDr 'kCn ^^vkBoh** dks 'kCn ^^nloh** vFkok led{k }kjk ÁfrLFkkfir fd;k tk;sxkA ¼2½ mi&fue ¼7½ ds ckn fuEufyf[kr ijarqd tksM+s tk;saxs] ;Fkk%& ^^ijarqd& ¼d½ pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds deZpkjh viuh okèkZD; lsokfuo`fÙk dh frfFk ls de ls de ,d ekg iwoZ ds ÁHkko ls LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ,oa pkSdhnkj in ij vius }kjk ukfer fdlh vkfJr dks fu;ksftr djus ds fy, vkosnu dj ldsxkA ¼[k½ lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx }kjk le;≤ ij vo/kkfjr U;wure ,oa vfèkdre mez&lhek lacaèkh Ákoèkku mu ij ykxw jgsxkA ¼x½ LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk ds i'pkr~ fu;qDr O;fDr ds vkfJr dks bl ijUrqd dk ykHk vuqekU; ugha gksxkA ¼?k½ LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fÙk dk bPNqd pkSdhnkj laoxZ ds O;fDr dks lsokfuo`fÙk dh viuh bfPNr frfFk ls de ls de ,d ekg iwoZ vius inLFkkiu ftyk ds ftyk inkfèkdkjh dks viuk vkosnu nsuk gksxkA** 7. The amended rules came into effect from the date of amendment, i.e., 05.03.2014. The amended rules came into effect from the date of amendment, i.e., 05.03.2014. Claim of dependent applicant prior to 05.03.2014 was to be considered on the basis of unamended minimum eligibility criteria of his being Class VIII pass. 8. The earlier unamended provision under Cadre Rules, 2006 was: ^^5- fu;qfDr & ¼2½ 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk&pkSdhnkj ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vkBoh d{kk mÙkh.kZ gksxhA** 9. For applicant subsequent to 05.03.2014, i.e., under the amended Rules, 2014, the minimum eligibility qualification for the beneficiary was matriculation. 10. Admitted position is that the petitioner did his matriculation on 25.05.2016, the qualification therefore has been acquired much after the date of original retirement of original writ petitioner, i.e., on 31.03.2016. 11. Under the amended provision application for appointment of son upon voluntary retirement is acceptable only if the application is made so that voluntary retirement of the incumbent/applicant on the post of Chaukidar takes effect one month prior to his date of retirement. The original date of voluntary retirement of the petitioner is 31.03.2016. Accordingly, application was filed on 19.02.2016 by the original writ petitioner claiming the benefits under the Amendment Rules, 2014 for appointment of his son in his place. The same was thus within the period prescribed. 12. Only obstruction in acceptance of the same was that the beneficiary (son) did not fulfil the requisite qualification of matriculation prescribed under the Amendment Rules, 2014. 13. Petitioner’s counsel however submits that since the petitioner’s son had already been registered for appearing at matriculation examination at the time the father made application, his claim could not have been rejected. 14. Option under Amendment Rules, 2014 could only be exercised during subsistence of service of the Chaukidar. In fact application was required to be made so that voluntary retirement of the father-applicant became effective at least one month prior to the retirement of Chaukidar. A harmonious and objective reading of the Rules, as amended leads to the irresistible conclusion that within the time limit prescribed, application was to be made of son/beneficiary having the minimum eligibility criteria of matriculation on the date of application. Merely because applicant’s son had been registered for matriculation, his claim for appointment could not be considered. A harmonious and objective reading of the Rules, as amended leads to the irresistible conclusion that within the time limit prescribed, application was to be made of son/beneficiary having the minimum eligibility criteria of matriculation on the date of application. Merely because applicant’s son had been registered for matriculation, his claim for appointment could not be considered. If such claim were to be allowed the requirement under amended Rule 5(2) of the Tenth or equivalent pass, i.e., matriculation would be considered a “dead letter” or “useless lumber”, which is the antithesis of harmonious construction. In this connection this Court is relying upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sultana Begum. Vs. Prem Chand Jain reported in (1997) 1 SCC 373 . 15. In view of the undisputed fact that the substituted writ petitioner was not qualified in terms of the Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014, his claim for benefit of employment under the said Rules was not valid and has rightly been rejected by order of the District Magistrate, Patna by impugned order dated 01.09.2016. 16. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.