JUDGMENT : 1. The similar issue fell for consideration in all these writ petitions, therefore, these matters have been listed together and have been heard and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The instant writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the direction has been sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of Clause-7 of the Notification contained in Memo No.4054 dated 19.07.2018, by which, the aforesaid notification has been made applicable prospectively and therefore, the petitioners have been deprived of the benefits of the amendment carried out by virtue of the aforesaid notification. 3. The facts leading to filing of these cases on behalf of the petitioner are that they had appeared for the limited examination conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, hereinafter referred to as “JSSC”, in pursuant to Advertisement No.09/2017 for filling up of the posts of constable. 4. The advertisement contains a condition about minimum qualifying marks to be scored in paper-II and paper-III in the OMR based examination for the various category, as referred herein :- (i) General Category candidate-50% in aggregate with a minimum score 45% in each paper II & paper-III. (ii) For SC/ST category candidate-45% in aggregate with a minimum score 40% in each paper-II & paper-III. 5. The Selecting Body, on the basis of the OMR based examination, had prepared merit list calling upon the number of candidates to participate in the physical test which has been decided to be three times of vacancy. Thereafter, the candidates who have been declared to be successful in the physical test, will have to appear before the Medical Board for the medical test. 6. According to the petitioners, the minimum qualifying marks as per the notification being notification no.252 dated 28.01.2016 in paper-II and paper-III in the OMR based examination for the various categories has been decided i.e., (i) General Category candidate-50% in aggregate with a minimum score 45% in each paper II & paper-III. (ii) For SC/ST category candidate-45% in aggregate with a minimum score 40% in each paper-II & paper-III. The examination was held on 26.11.2017 and the result was published on 10.02.2018. The vacancy position, as reflected in the advertisement is 1544. (ii) For SC/ST category candidate-45% in aggregate with a minimum score 40% in each paper-II & paper-III. The examination was held on 26.11.2017 and the result was published on 10.02.2018. The vacancy position, as reflected in the advertisement is 1544. The petitioners claim to have fulfilled the requisite qualification to appear in the limited examination but could not qualify the OMR based examination, reason being that they have scored marks less than 50% under Clause-12(ii) of the advertisement and in consequence thereof, large number of vacancies remained unfilled. The authorities of the State of Jharkhand more particularly the Director General of Police had recommended for lowering down the cut off marks vide his letter dated 07.03.2018, taking into consideration, the large number of vacancies remained unfilled. The recommendation has been made to carry out certain amendment in the Jharkhand State Police Sub Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Recruitment Rule, 2016 along with the recommendation to lower down the cut off marks. The aforesaid proposal was sent before the Cabinet for its approval by the Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management. The proposal was to substitute the existing criteria pertaining to minimum qualification and reduce the same to 40%, 36.5%, 34% and 32% for General Category, BC, BC-I (Annx.-16), SC/ST/Women respectively. The amendment has been carried out as contained in memo no. 4054 dated 19.07.2018 by reducing the minimum qualifying marks but the same was made prospectively. 7. According to the petitioners, the decision of the authority in making the aforesaid amendment of reducing the cut off marks from the prospective date is absolutely an arbitrary decision of the authority, taking into consideration the fact that after the candidates having been declared successful but large number of vacancies remained unfilled, therefore, desirability of reduction of cut off marks have been considered to be appropriate decision, so that, the vacancies remained unfilled, in pursuance to the selection process initiated by virtue of Advertisement No.09/2017, be filled up. The State has accepted the proposal of the competent department of the State of Jharkhand but even after such amendment, the same has been applied prospectively by denying the fruits of the said amendment to the unsuccessful candidates and therefore, these writ petitions have been filed for seeking a direction to apply the aforesaid amendment from the date when the original rule was enacted for conducting the selection process. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners along with Mrs. Smita Sinha, has submitted that the amendment since has been carried out by way of substitution, therefore, the same will relate back to the date of original document but without considering that aspect of the matter, the notification stipulates about its applicability from the date of issuance of the letter and hence, such stipulation of its applicability from the date of its notification is contrary to the principle of amendment by way of substitution, since, the aforesaid amendment ought to have been made effective from the date of original rule and if that would have been done, the petitioners ought to have been selected and the vacancies remained unfilled would have been filled up. 9. Learned Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, have appeared. 10. The State has taken plea in the affidavits filed on different dates that the principle of applicability of amendment, even though, i.e., by way of substitution, if allowed to be carried out from the date of original document, the entire selection process which has been set at rest, will have to be re-casted or reversed and that is the reason, the principle which is applicable in the matter of amendment by way of substitution in the facts and circumstances of the instant cases, will not be applicable. It has further been submitted that the position of law is settled that the selection process is to be initiated on the basis of the rule which was applicable on the date when the recruitment process has commenced. It has further been submitted that the position of law is settled that the selection process is to be initiated on the basis of the rule which was applicable on the date when the recruitment process has commenced. Herein, the recruitment process has commenced by virtue of Jharkhand State Police Sub Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Recruitment Rule, 2016 but subsequent thereto, the State Government has carried out the amendment in the aforesaid rule by virtue of notification dated 19.07.2018 (impugned) by lowering down the cut off marks but effective with immediate effect, reason being that if the aforesaid notification would have been directed to be implemented w.e.f. from the date of original rule, then the settled principle of law to the effect that the selection process is to be started on the basis of the relevant rule which was invoked at the time of issuance of advertisement will be frustrated and that is the reason, the State Government has come out with the said notification making its applicability with immediate effect. 11. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission has submitted that since the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission is the Selecting Body and as such, proceeded for fulfilling the posts in terms of the rule prevalent at the time of advertisement, basis upon which, merit list has been prepared on the basis of the cut off marks in the said rule. The candidates who have found to be successful on the basis of the aforesaid rule, have been finally selected and appointed. It has been submitted that the selection process has already been completed way back in the year, 2018 and as such, in the year, 2022, if such direction for treating the impugned notification to be implemented with effect from the date of original rule, will have adverse effect in the entire process of selection which has set at rest. It has been submitted that the selection process has already been completed way back in the year, 2018 and as such, in the year, 2022, if such direction for treating the impugned notification to be implemented with effect from the date of original rule, will have adverse effect in the entire process of selection which has set at rest. Further, submission has been made so far as the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that large number of vacancies are still unfilled and if the impugned notification would be directed to be implemented from the date of original rule, the vacancy which has remained unfilled, will be filled up, the said principle cannot be said to be applicable as because once the recruitment process concludes by issuance of appointment letter on the basis of the preparation of the merit list of one or the other successful candidates based upon the prevalent rule which was invoked at the time of advertisement, the unfilled vacancies cannot be allowed to be filled up by virtue of amendment made in the subsequent rule. The unfilled vacancies is required to be filled up by way of fresh advertisement, so that, the chances be given to the other aspirants who in the meanwhile has become eligible for consideration of their candidature. 12. In the backdrop of these submissions, both, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission have submitted that the writ petitions are fit to be dismissed. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the relevant documents as appended in the affidavits filed on their behalf. 14. The core issue which is required to be answered by this Court, as to whether the rule which has been notified after conclusion of recruitment process can be made applicable from the date when the advertisement has been issued for initiating the process of recruitment to fill up the post of Constables? 15. The law is well settled to the effect that the recruitment process is to be initiated on the basis of the rule which was prevalent during the relevant time, reference in this regard may be made to the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of A.A. Calton Vrs. 15. The law is well settled to the effect that the recruitment process is to be initiated on the basis of the rule which was prevalent during the relevant time, reference in this regard may be made to the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of A.A. Calton Vrs. Director of Education and Anr., (1983) 3 SCC 33 , wherein, at paragraph-5, it has been held by the Honb’ble Apex which reads as under:- “...........But it is equally well settled that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing right, unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retrospective effect. In the instant case admittedly the proceedings for the selection had commenced in the year 1973 and after the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommendations made by the Selection Committee twice the Director acquired the jurisdiction to make an appointment from amongst the qualified candidates who had applied for the vacancy in question. At the instance of the appellant himself in the earlier writ petition filed by him the High Court had directed the Director to exercise that power. Although the Director in the present case exercised that power subsequent to August 18, 1975 on which date the amendment came into force, it cannot be said that the selection made by him was illegal since the amending law had no retrospective effect........” Further, in State of Rajasthan Vrs. R. Dayal and Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 419 , wherein, at paragraph-8 & 9, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down which 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 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 of 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. 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. 9. It is contended by Shri Das that one of the persons, namely, H.L. Meena was appointed against a carried-forward post as per the existing Rules and, therefore, his appointment cannot be challenged. We find it difficult to give acceptance to the contention. Even a carried-forward vacancy is required to be considered in accordance with the law existing unless suitable relaxation is made by the Government. We find it difficult to give acceptance to the contention. Even a carried-forward vacancy is required to be considered in accordance with the law existing unless suitable relaxation is made by the Government. As on that date, when the appointment came to be made, the selection was required to be made on the basis of the Rules as existing on the date the vacancy arose. Since, admittedly, that has not been done, the appointment of Shri Bhatnagar and H.L. Meena must be treated to be only temporary appointments pending consideration of the claims of all the eligible persons belonging to General and Reserved quota separately as per Rules.” Further, in P. Mohanan Pillai Vrs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 497 , wherein, at paragraph-11, it has been held which reads as under:- “11. It is now well settled that ordinarily rules which were prevailing at the time, when the vacancies arose would be adhered to. The qualification must be fixed at that time. The eligibility criteria as also the procedures as were prevailing on the date of vacancy should ordinarily be followed.” It is thus, evident that the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law, that the rule which is prevalent at the time when the advertisement has been issued, the process of recruitment is required to be concluded on the basis of the said rule. It further requires to refer herein that if the selection process once begins and concluded by issuance of offer of appointment and if in the meanwhile, any new rule comes and if it will be directed to be implemented in the selection of process where the recruitment process has already been concluded, it will nothing but amounts to filling up of the posts on the basis of the applicability of two rules of recruitment, which is not permissible, reason being that in a recruitment process, the candidates will be selected on two different parameters. 16. Admittedly, herein, the writ petitioners had participated in the process of selection in terms of Advertisement No.09/2017. The aforesaid recruitment process in terms of the Advertisement No.09/2017 had started by virtue of the rule which carries the following criteria for selection of one or the other candidates in the different categories, which reads as under:- (i) General Category candidate-50% in aggregate with a minimum score 45% in each paper II & paper-III. The aforesaid recruitment process in terms of the Advertisement No.09/2017 had started by virtue of the rule which carries the following criteria for selection of one or the other candidates in the different categories, which reads as under:- (i) General Category candidate-50% in aggregate with a minimum score 45% in each paper II & paper-III. (ii) For SC/ST category candidate-45% in aggregate with a minimum score 40% in each paper-II & paper-III. The petitioners had been declared to be disqualified. However, the claim of the petitioners that large number of vacancies remained unfilled due to applicability of the rule, based upon which, the recruitment process has been initiated and concluded. According to the petitioners that after the conclusion of the recruitment process, recommendation has been made for amending the rule to the effect by reducing the cut off marks which was invoked during the time when the Advertisement No.09/2017 was published. The Cabinet has approved the aforesaid proposal and thereafter, the notification has been issued in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the criteria of selection depending upon the marks of different categories has been reduced, as quoted and referred above. It is evident from the impugned notification that the said amendment has been carried out by using the word “Pratiasthapit”. The English meaning of the word “Pratiasthapit”, although, is substitute and therefore, the argument has been advanced that once the amendment has been carried out by way of substitution which means that the amendment which has been carried out by the impugned notification which relates back to the original rule, therefore, it is to be made effective from the date of applicability of original rule. But it appears from one of the condition that the said notification has been directed to be implemented from the date of issuance of aforesaid notification. The petitioners, being aggrieved with the stipulation made in the said notification about its applicability from the date of issuance of notification, are before this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing these writ petitions. 17. There is no dispute that if the amendment is being carried out by way of substitution, the aforesaid amendment will relate back to the original date, on which, the original rule has been made applicable. 17. There is no dispute that if the amendment is being carried out by way of substitution, the aforesaid amendment will relate back to the original date, on which, the original rule has been made applicable. The question herein is that the said principle of relating back the amendment by way of substitution from the original date can be said to be proper, in the facts of given case. 18. According to the considered view of this Court that in the matter of selection to fill up the posts and when any amendment is being carried out after conclusion of the process of selection, there is no question of giving its effect to the unsuccessful candidates who have been declared to be un-successful in the process of selection which was initiated on the basis of the prevalent rule during the time of issuance of advertisement. 19. This Court has come to this view, for the reason, that if the general principle of applicability of amendment by way of substitution will be allowed to be relates back to the original documents, then there will be two adverse consequences that :- (i) In a selection process, candidates will be selected on the basis of two different rules. (ii) The amended notification, if applied from the date of original rule, will be against the principle that once the game starts, the rule of game cannot be allowed to be changed. 20. It is not in dispute that if the selection process begins, the same is to be concluded on the basis of the rule which was prevalent at the time of issuance of advertisement, as would evident from the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.A. Calton Vrs. Director of Education and Anr., State of Rajasthan Vrs. R. Dayal and Ors. and P. Mohanan Pillai Vrs. State of Kerala & Ors. (supra). If any advantage will be given to the unsuccessful candidates on the basis of the amended rule, the selection will be said to have made on the basis of the two rules, which cannot be said to be permissible. Therefore, according to the considered view of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the State Government has come out with the amended rule making it applicable from the date of issuance of notification, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 21. Therefore, according to the considered view of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the State Government has come out with the amended rule making it applicable from the date of issuance of notification, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 21. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that large number of vacancies has remained unfilled, therefore, the same is to be filled up on the basis of the amended rule which has been carried out by virtue of the impugned notification. But, according to the considered view, the aforesaid submission is having no force, for the reason, that once the selection process begins and concluded by issuance of offer of appointment, the unfilled vacancies cannot be allowed to be filled up by virtue of amendment carried out in the rule, rather, the remaining unfilled vacancies is required to be filled up with fresh advertisement, so that, the other aspirants who have become eligible in the meanwhile may get a chance for consideration of their candidature, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash Vrs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 , wherein, at pargraph- 7, it has been held which reads as under:- “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [ (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165 ] , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [ (1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] , or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [ (1985) 1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899 ] .” Further, in the State of Haryana Vrs. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors., (1974) 3 SCC 220 , wherein, at paragraph-7, it has been held as under:- “………The advertisement that there are 15 vacancies to be filled does not also give him a right to be appointed. It may happen that the Government for financial or other administrative reasons may not fill up any vacancies. In such a case the candidates, even the first in the list, will not have a right to be appointed. The list is merely to help the State Government in making the appointments showing which candidates have the minimum qualifications under the Rules. The stage for selection for appointment comes thereafter, and it is not disputed that under the Constitution it is the State Government alone which can make the appointments. The High Court does not come into the picture for recommending any particular candidate. After the State Government have taken a decision as to which of the candidates in accordance with the list should be appointed, the list of selected candidates for appointment is forwarded to the High Court then will have to enter such candidates on a Register maintained by it. When vacancies are to be filled the High Court will send in the names of the candidates in accordance with the select list and in the order they have been placed in that list for appointment in the vacancies. When vacancies are to be filled the High Court will send in the names of the candidates in accordance with the select list and in the order they have been placed in that list for appointment in the vacancies. The High Court, therefore, plays no part except to suggest to the Government who in accordance with the select list is to be appointed and in a particular vacancy………” Likewise, in the case of Government of Orissa Vrs. Haraprasad Das & Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 487 , wherein, at paragraph-9, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under:- “9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-State that the Tribunal in giving the aforesaid directions has acted beyond its jurisdiction and that the said directions are illegal inasmuch as they are contrary to Rule 11 of the Rules. In our opinion the contention deserves to be accepted. Merely because there were some vacant posts of Copyholders and the Director of the Press had recommended to the Government to fill up those posts it was not open to the Tribunal to direct the Government to fill up those posts even though it had good reasons not to do so. It should have been appreciated by the Tribunal that mere empanelment or inclusion of one's name in the selection list does not give him a right to be appointed. So also if the Government decides not to make further appointments for a valid reason, it cannot be said that it has acted arbitrarily by not appointing those whose names are included in the selection list. Whether to fill up a post or not is a policy decision and unless it is shown to be arbitrary it is not open to the Tribunal to interfere with such decision of the Government and direct it to make further appointments……….” 22. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, is of the view that the stipulation made for applicability of the impugned notification from the date of its issuance suffers from no error. 23. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, is of the view that the stipulation made for applicability of the impugned notification from the date of its issuance suffers from no error. 23. As has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the Staff Selection Commission that the selection has already been made in the year, 2018 and since then, four years has already lapsed, therefore, it would not be apt for this Court to pass direction upon the State respondent to fill up the unfilled posts from the candidates who have declared unsuccessful on the basis of the prevalent rule which was invoked at the time of issuance of advertisement. 24. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and according to the considered view of this Court, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 25. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions stand dismissed. 26. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.