JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- (i) That the impugned rejection order dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure A-9) and impugned final seniority list circulated on 15.09.2018 (Annexure A-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the name of the applicant may kindly be reflected at serial No. 29 in the final seniority list of Patwari of District Solan, H.P. and accordingly, the name of the applicant may kindly be considered for promotion to the next higher post. 2. The bare minimal facts as are necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner qualified the written test and thereafter viva voice for training of the post of Patwari and ultimately selected for Patwari training vide office order dated 07.08.2006 and name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 2 in the list of the candidates. The petitioner thereafter completed the Patwari training and was offered appointment vide order dated 06.01.2009 on contract basis. 3. Later on, his services came to be regularized w.e.f. 03.06.2015. Respondent No. 2 circulated tentative seniority list of Patwari upto 31.12.2016, wherein name of the petitioner was reflected at Serial No. 68 and whereas the names of the private respondents No. 3 to 9 were reflected at Serial No. 72 to 78. 4. The tentative seniority list was subsequently made final and thereafter final seniority list was circulated on 15.09.2018. However, in the final seniority list so circulated, the respondents No. 3 to 9 were shown senior to the petitioner by reflecting their names at Serial No. 29 to 36, whereas the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 37. 5. The petitioner accordingly filed a representation with the official-respondents seeking rectification of the mistake, but to no avail, hence, this petition. 6. The private respondents even though served have not chosen to appear before this Court and ex parte proceedings were ordered to be conducted against them vide order dated 20.12.2023. 7. As regards the official-respondents No. 1 and 2, they filed reply wherein the factual matrix have not been disputed. 6. The private respondents even though served have not chosen to appear before this Court and ex parte proceedings were ordered to be conducted against them vide order dated 20.12.2023. 7. As regards the official-respondents No. 1 and 2, they filed reply wherein the factual matrix have not been disputed. The only defence taken by the respondents-State is that the final seniority list was drawn and prepared strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15(6) of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Patwari Mohal notified vide Notification No. Rev-A(A)3-1/2007, dated 10.08.2009, which clearly provides that seniority was to determine on the basis of the Patwari Examination and practical training and according to the marks obtained by the petitioner, as compared to respondents No. 3 to 9, he has rightly been placed at Serial No. 37. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner as also the private respondents were recruited against the post of Patwari prior to the promulgation of the Rules notified on 10.08.2009 (for short the 'Rules'). 9. It is also not in dispute that the Recruitment & Promotion Rules which were in vogue at the time when both the contesting parties were initially appointed for training as Patwari candidates, then the Patwaris were governed by the Himachal Pradesh Revenue Department (Mohal Class-III Non Gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 1992. 10. Now, the moot question is whether the respondents could have resorted to amended Rule 15 as notified on 10.08.2009, for determination of seniority of Patwari. 11. However, before answering the same it shall be apt to reproduce Rules 15(A) and 15(B) of the 1992 Rules, which read as under:- “ 15(A) Selection for training of Patwari candidate:­ (1) Selection for training to Patwari from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges in HP. shall be made on the basis of written test and Viva­ Voce test, the standard/syllabus etc. of which shall be prescribed by the F.C. (Revenue). (2) The maximum number of persons to, be selected by each District Collector, as Patwari candidates shall be 2% of the cadre strength or vacancies likely to occur in the next five years within the District which ever is less. of which shall be prescribed by the F.C. (Revenue). (2) The maximum number of persons to, be selected by each District Collector, as Patwari candidates shall be 2% of the cadre strength or vacancies likely to occur in the next five years within the District which ever is less. (3) The District Collector shall maintain a register of Patwari candidates selected for training in accordance with merit obtained in the selection test as prescribed in sub­rule (1) supra. (4) Selected candidates shall have to undergo Patwari training as laid down in the Land Records Manual at their own expenses. On the completion of training. the candidates shall have to qualify the Patwari examination by such standard and syllabus as may be prescribed by F.C.(Revenue) from time to time. (5) A candidate who for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Distt. Collector for. not being able to successfully complete the patwari training, the District Collector with the approval of the F.C. (Revenue) may allow him to undergo fresh training in the same Distt. in the next batch and in case there is not training for the next batch during the next year in the same Distt., the F.C. (Revenue) may allow him to undergo the patwari training as a fresh candidate in other districts. (6) On passing of Patwari Examination. the candidate will be considered as "Qualified Patwari Candidate." Provided that a candidate who does not qualify the patwar examination in the first attempt, he can qualify the same in two subsequent successive examinations, which shall be held for the purpose as prescribed by F.C. (Revenue). Provided further that the candidate who do not qualify in the first attempt, their names will appear in the patwari candidates register below the candidates who have qualified in the first attempt in their own original order after, striking off their names from previous original place. Provided further that the candidate who do not qualify in the first attempt, their names will appear in the patwari candidates register below the candidates who have qualified in the first attempt in their own original order after, striking off their names from previous original place. Provided further that the candidates who do not qualify in the second attempt, their names shall appear in the patwari candidates register below the candidates who have qualified in the second attempt in their own original order after striking off their names from the previous original places assigned to the candidates passing the said examination in second attempt: Provided further that the candidates who fail to qualify the examination in third attempt, their names shall be struck off from the register maintained by the concerned District Collector.” 15(B) Direct Recruitment for the post of Patwari:­ A "Qualified Patwari Candidate" shall be offered the post of Patwari strictly in accordance with the seniority maintained in the patwari candidate register under rule 15 (A) as per roster prescribed by the State Government for filling up of vacancies reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/ Backward Classes/other categories of persons from time to time. Provided that if a qualified candidate does not accept the offer of appointment excepting the cases where the reasons are given to the satisfaction of the Appointing Authority, his name shall be struck off from the aforesaid register.” 12. A perusal of Rule 15 (A) demonstrates that selection for training to Patwari from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange is to be made on the basis of written test and viva voce. The District Collector is to maintain a register of Patwari candidates selected for training in accordance with merit obtained in the section test as prescribed in sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 (A). Rule 15(A) (4) further provides that selected candidates have to undergo Patwari training and on completion of training, the candidates have to qualify Patwari examination by such standard in syllabus as may be prescribed from time to time. Rule 15(A) (4) further provides that selected candidates have to undergo Patwari training and on completion of training, the candidates have to qualify Patwari examination by such standard in syllabus as may be prescribed from time to time. In terms of sub-rule (5), a candidate who is not able to successfully complete the Patwari training may be allowed to undergo fresh training in the same district in the next batch and in case there is no training in the next batch during the next year in the same district, then the F.C. (Revenue) may allow him to undergo Patwari training as a fresh candidate in other district. Sub-rule (6) thereof says that on passing of Patwari examination the candidate will be considered as ‘qualified Patwari candidate’. Rule 15 (B) provides that a ‘qualified Patwari candidate’ shall be offered the post of Patwari strictly in accordance with seniority maintained in the Patwari candidate register under Rule 15 (A) as per the Roster prescribed by the State Government for filling up the vacancies reserved for various categories from time to time. 13. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that there is no ambiguity in the language of Rule 15 (B) that offer of post to the Patwari has to be strictly in accordance with seniority maintained in the Patwari Candidate Register under Rule 15 (A) from amongst qualified Patwari candidates. Now, sub- rule (3) of Rule 15 (A) clearly lays down that District Collector shall maintain a register of Patwari candidates selected for training in accordance with merit obtained in the selection test as prescribed in sub-rule (1) (supra). This, according to us is the seniority maintained in the Patwari Candidate Register under Rule 15 (A) and thus, after a Patwari candidate becomes a qualified Patwari candidate, he has to be offered the post of Patwari strictly in accordance with the seniority maintained in the Patwari Candidate Register under Rule 15 (A). 14. In terms of the provisions of Rules 15 (A) and 15(B) of the 1992 Rules, read together harmoniously the appointment to the post of Patwari of a qualified Patwari candidate is not dependent upon the merit gained by a Patwari candidate in the process of his undertaking Patwari examination, but the same is determined on the basis of seniority maintained in the Patwari Candidate Register, i.e. Rule 15 (A) (3) to be precise. Therefore, in view of above, there is merit in the contention of the petitioner that Rules 15 (A) and 15 (B) of the 1992 Rules, clearly provide as to how the seniority of Patwari is to be determined once they are offered the said post after becoming a qualified Patwari candidate. 15. Now adverting to the amended Rule 15, notified on 10.08.2009, the same reads as under::- “Rule 15 Selection for training of Patwari candidate and their recruitment for the post of Patwari. (1). …... ….. … .. (5)...... (6) On passing of Patwari examination, the candidate will be considered as 'qualified Patwari candidate. The Deputy Commissioner shall maintain another Register which will be called as 'Qualified Patwaris Candidate Register 'in which the seniority of the qualified Patwari Candidates will be fixed in accordance with their merit determined on the basis of the Patwari Examination and practical training. The qualified Patwari Candidates will be offered the post of Patwari, strictly in accordance with their seniority maintained in the 'Qualified Patwari Candidate Register', under rules ibid as per roster prescribed by the State Government for filing up of vacancies reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. Scheduled tribes/Other Backward Classes/Other categories of persons from time to time.” 16. Noticeably, the amended Rule 15, brought about change for determining the seniority but the same could not have been applied retrospectively to the case of the petitioner and the private respondents, especially, when there is no decision taken by the competent authority to amend the rules with retrospective effect. 17. In taking this view, we are duly supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka (1990) 1 SCC 411 , wherein it was observed as under:- “5. It is well-settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is ex- pressly 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....” 18. 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....” 18. Similar reiteration of law can be found in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Chandra vs. Radha Krishna (2009) 9 SCC 454 , wherein it was observed as under:- “19. The Rules pertaining to the reservation and promotion list are prospective in nature and thereby cannot disturb the promotion list of the appellants by virtue of this Rule. Further, if a rule/notification/circular claims to be retrospective in nature, has to expressly specify, as per the rules of interpretation of statutes in the instant petition, the appellants have failed to establish the nature with regard to retrospective effect of the notification/rules.” 19. Clearly, the exercises undertaken by the respondent in issuing the final seniority list by taking into consideration the Rules as notified on 10.08.2009, is clearly illegal and amounts to conferring undue benefits on the private respondents herein who have not even chosen to contest the instant petition. 20. Accordingly, we find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed and the order dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure A-9) whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected is ordered to be quashed and set aside. Likewise, the final seniority list circulated on 15.09.2018 (Annexure A-7) showing the petitioner junior to the private respondents is also quashed and set aside. The official-respondents are directed to issue final seniority list by showing the petitioner senior to the private respondents as was rightly shown in the tentative seniority list, which was based on the rules prevalent at the relevant time. 21. The petition stands allowed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any. Parties are left to bear their own costs.