ORDER : Rekha Borana, J. 1. The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioners applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 26.07.2013 (Annex.-1) for the post of Lower Division Clerk Grade II. The petitioners herein belong to the SC and ST category and therefore, they applied in the said category. After the declaration of the result the petitioners were not declared qualified and therefore, the present writ petitions were filed on the ground that the minimum qualifying marks as advertised ought to have been relaxed as sufficient number of SC and ST category candidates were not available and posts remain unfilled. 2. During the pendency of the present writ petitions similar matters came up before this Court and ultimately vide judgment dated 27.04.2018 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1666/2017; Babal Devi Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., it was directed that the petitioners be awarded grace marks and if anyone of them stands in merit after awarding the same and is otherwise eligible for appointment, he should be recommended for appointment. In pursuance to the directions issued in Babal Devi Meena's case (supra), the State Government proceeded on to award the required grace marks to the candidates and a new provisional result was issued on 15.03.2019 whereby, the list of the selected candidates after awarding of grace marks was issued. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners himself vide rejoinder that three to four out of the present petitioners have been selected vide the revised result. 4. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners now is that the notification dated 18.04.2018 (Annex.-RR/3) issued by the Government of Rajasthan has since come in existence and therefore, the same be applied to the remaining of the petitioners and they be granted the relaxation as provided in the said notification. 5. Admittedly, the present recruitment relates back to the advertisement dated 26.07.2013 and the notification, the petitioners are relying upon at this stage, is of the year 2018. The same cannot, under any law or provision, be applied to the recruitment of the 2013. No notification can be said to have retrospective application as the same would conclude into a new series of litigation. The same cannot, under any law or provision, be applied to the recruitment of the 2013. No notification can be said to have retrospective application as the same would conclude into a new series of litigation. Even otherwise, it is the settled proposition of law that any Notification or Circular of a Government can be deemed to have a retrospective effect only if the same has been mentioned to be so in the notification/circular itself, otherwise not. 6. In view of the above observations, the present writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous against the petitioners who had been selected in the revised list and are dismissed qua the remaining petitioners i.e. those who had not been selected in pursuance to the revised result.