JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer and Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate appearing with Ms. Priyanka Chandel, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, respectively. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents with the direction to the respondents to call the petitioner for screening and interview for the post of assistant professor (commerce). In pursuance to advertisement no.-Rectt.21/2020 dated 07.12.2020. ii) That the respondents may also be directed to consider his candidature for the post of assistant professor (commerce). 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the process which was initiated by the respondent-University vide advertisement Annexure P-2, dated 07.12.2020, for inter alia filling up one post of Assistant Professor in the International Centre for Distant Education and Open Learning, in the stream of Commerce, reserved for ex-servicemen, was not taken to its logical conclusion as no interviews were held. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner happened to be the only candidate, who had applied to the post in issue, it is for this reason that the respondent-University did not hold any interview for the post. Learned Counsel further submits that pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in CWP No. 4512 of 2021, titled as Shri Arun Vatsyayan vs. H.P. University and another, vide judgment dated 06.09.2021, the then existing policy of the respondent-University stands amended vide notification dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure P-6), relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “4. Shortlisting for interview: Candidates shall be invited for an interview in order of merit according to marks obtained by them in the Academic Score Component (Tally Sheet) accordingly to following criteria:- (i) For one vacancy maximum of 20 (twenty) candidates shall be invited. (ii) For every additional vacancy a maximum of 10(ten) additional eligible candidates be invited. (iii) In case of single candidate of the reserved category the policy and programme will apply vertically and horizontally for ensuing proper representation, which otherwise entitles him/her to be shown in the open general category and eligible for screening for the advertised post. As a consequential effect the concerned candidate of reserved category will be eligible for the consideration of the said post.” 5. As a consequential effect the concerned candidate of reserved category will be eligible for the consideration of the said post.” 5. Learned Counsel accordingly submits that on account of these changed circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and a mandamus requires to be issued to the respondent-University, to hold interview for the post in issue and thereafter offer appointment to the petitioner. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University submits that the advertisement, subject matter of this writ petition, was issued as far back as on 07.12.2020. The claim of the petitioner has become stale. Learned Counsel further informs the Court on instructions that in the event of the respondent-University intending to fill up the post in issue in future, then the same will be done by issuing a fresh advertisement so that all eligible candidates can participate in the process of selection, including the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Counsel for the respondent-University, this Court is of the considered view that the writ of the petitioner cannot be allowed. This is for the reason that there is no plausible explanation in the entire writ petition as to why the petitioner has approached this Court after almost three years as from the date of advertisement. Besides this, it is settled law that whenever there is an amendment carried out in policies etc. then the same is prospective until and unless the same is expressly made retrospective vide the notification in terms whereof the amendment is carried out. A perusal of Notification dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) demonstrates that the same is prospective in nature and therefore, on the strength of this notification, the petitioner cannot call upon this Court to issue a mandamus directing the respondent-University to take the process initiated vide advertisement dated 07.12.2020 to its logical conclusion on the basis of this notification. Otherwise also, this Court is of the considered view that there is complete misreading of the notification (Annexure P-6) by the petitioner as this notification only deals with short listing of candidates for interview and the same does not suggest or entail as to how many minimum candidates have to apply for a post to enable the University to take the process of appointment to its logical conclusion. 8. 8. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that learned Counsel for the respondent-University has already stated that in case the University intends to fill up the post in issue in future, then the same will be done by issuing an appropriate advertisement, calling upon all eligible candidates to participate in the process, including the petitioner, provided he is eligible, this petition is disposed of by observing that if the post in issue is advertised afresh, then the petitioner may participate for selection, if otherwise eligible. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.