JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing order dated 18.02.2013 whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected; and for direction upon the respondents to reconsider the matter of appointment of petitioner no. 2 whose lands have been acquired by the respondent-Railway for laying Railway Track. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the agricultural land of the writ petitioners was acquired for the purpose of laying railway track and for the aforesaid purpose, L.A. Case No. 08 of 1980-1981 was filed before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, in which, notice was issued to the writ petitioners stating therein that 09.68 acres of land is going to be acquired for the purpose of railway track and if they have any objection, they may file objection over their claim. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that several villagers including the writ petitioners raised objection for laying of railway track on their land as a result the higher authorities of respondents-railways assured them to provide employment against the land acquired. But, when for a long period of time no action was taken on the assurance given by the respondents-authorities of Railway, several representation was submitted by writ petitioners before the competent authority and lastly they submitted representation on 17.10.2012 but no action was taken, which led the writ petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 612 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2012 giving liberty to the writ petitioner to file representation before the Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Adra who shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 4. With the liberty aforesaid, the writ petitioner filed representation before the authority concerned, which was disposed of and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.02.2013, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. 5. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-Railways. 6. 4. With the liberty aforesaid, the writ petitioner filed representation before the authority concerned, which was disposed of and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.02.2013, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. 5. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-Railways. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case of the petitioner is governed by Railway Board's Circular/Letter dated 16.07.2010 which speaks about providing employment in lieu of land acquired but the respondents-authorities without taking into consideration the fact that large chunk of agricultural land of the petitioners has been acquired, rejected the claim of the writ petitioners of providing employment in lieu of land acquired. 7. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-Railways has submitted that the respondent-authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioners has considered the circular dated 16.07.2010. He further submitted that since the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1980-1981 and circular of Railway Board has come on 16.07.2010, claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained after lapse of more than three decades. 8. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and considering the pleadings made in the affidavits and documents available on record, is of the view that since the land of the petitioner has been acquired in the year 1980-1981 and petitioner is relying circular dated 16.07.2010, i.e. issued after three decades of acquisition of land, for getting employment in lieu of land acquired, it cannot be given its retrospective application, if otherwise the rule/circular provides. Herein, admittedly it is not the case of the writ petitioners that the said circular of the Railway Board has been given its retrospective application that too retrospective application with three decades. 9. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, [ (1990) 1 SCC 411 ], in particular paragraph 5, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “5. It is well settled rule of construction that 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. It is well settled rule of construction that 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 a rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rules of 1987 do not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rules were not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force, the amended Rules could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter.” 10. Considering the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court is of the view that since the circular has come into effect on 16.07.2010 whereas the land was acquired in the year 1980-81, the circular dated 16.07.2010 cannot be given its retrospective application to consider the case of the writ petitioners to provide employment. 11. In view the discussions made herein above, this Court is of view that the writ petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.