JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), order(s), and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners on the post of Amin since they are working on the said posts under Respondents for last 10 years and also in view of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard; (ii) For issuance of a writ(s)/order (s)/direction (s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Annexure-14 Information provided on 29.5.2020 regarding proceeding dated 22.02.2020 by which claim of petitioner for regularization has been rejected applying Rule 2013 retrospectively where there is no such mentioning in Rule and admittedly, it has been to act prospectively considering that the petitioner was appointee of year 2008 when rule 2013 was not in existence and appointed in form of circular dated 31.2.1980. Hence the impugned order bad in law against law of land. Once right has been accrued, the same cannot be taken away by applying the rule retrospectively. 2. Briefly stated, before appointment, the petitioners were working on the post of Amin on a daily wage basis. One Advertisement was issued for preparation of the panel so that from the panel the appointment can be made, and minimum qualification was Intermediate and Amin training certificate. Petitioners, having requisite qualification, applied and call letter was issued for interview, and they appeared and were successful. The panel of selected candidates was published, where the names of the petitioners figured at Sl. No. 9 (petitioner-1), Sl. No. 6 (petitioner-2), Sl. No. 10 (petitioner-3), Sl. No. 15 (petitioner-4), and they were directed to give joining to their respective posts and places. Petitioners made their joining to respective posts and places in terms of Annexure-2. The petitioners made representation dated 23.10.2018 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for regularization of their service as they have been working since more than 10 years but till date the same is pending. The petitioners have also made representation before the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand for regularization of their service on 24.10.2018. Thereafter, reminder representation has also been given by the petitioners on 5.12.2018. The petitioners have also made representation before the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand for regularization of their service on 24.10.2018. Thereafter, reminder representation has also been given by the petitioners on 5.12.2018. But till filing of the Writ application all the aforesaid representations are pending and no heed has been paid by the respondent-authority for regularization of service of the petitioners. Hence, this Writ application. 3. During pendency of writ petition, petitioners came to know that the candidature of petitioners for regularization has been rejected but the said document has never been provided to petitioners either by authorities or by the State by filing supplementary counter affidavit and the candidature has been rejected vide proceeding of meeting held on 20.2.2020 which petitioners obtained under RTI Act vide information given to the Advocate on the 29.05.2020 which was challenged by filing Interlocutory Application No. 1262 of 2025 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that advertisement was issued for preparation of the panel so that from the panel the appointment can be made in which minimum qualification was Intermediate and Amin training certificate. This shows at the time of appointment to the petitioners, the qualification as required in terms of 2013 Rule or impugned order was not required. Hence, Rule 2013 cannot be made applicable retrospectively. 5. It has been also submitted that Petitioner no. 1 is Intermediate, B.A., and has done Amin Training, Petitioner no.2 is Intermediate and has Amin training, Petitioner no.3 is Intermediate, B.A., and has Amin training, Petitioner no.4 is Intermediate, B.A., and has Amin training. This shows the Petitioners have done the training. Hence, they possess the qualification as required, which will be evident from Annexure-7 to 10 about their qualification and Amin training certificate. Experience certificate of more than 10 years was also issued to the petitioner no. 3 by the Circle Officer (Annexure -4) and similarly certificate is issued to other petitioners; which shows that they have experience of more than 10 years. 6. He further draws attention towards notification no. 16440 dated 3.12.1980 wherein it has been stated at Sl. Experience certificate of more than 10 years was also issued to the petitioner no. 3 by the Circle Officer (Annexure -4) and similarly certificate is issued to other petitioners; which shows that they have experience of more than 10 years. 6. He further draws attention towards notification no. 16440 dated 3.12.1980 wherein it has been stated at Sl. No. 1(Ka) that for any appointment in Grade-III, no written and oral examination will be conducted and marks which have been allotted by the School and the College will be counted and on the basis of marks obtained in the College/School examination, merit list will be prepared and appointment will be done on that basis against sanctioned post. He further relied upon the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs The State of Jharkhand in Civil Appeal No.7423-7429 of 2018 which is applicable to them as such impugned order of rejection of regularization may be set aside and they may be regularized. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents relying upon its Counter affidavit submits that petitioners are not working in the sanctioned and vacant post and they were not regularized in their post as the mandatory qualification of I.T.I was not possessed by them as per the Jharkhand State Ameen Cadre (Recruitment, Promotion, and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2013. He further submits that due to the lockdown imposed in the country during Covid-19, the petitioners could not be informed about the meeting held on 20.02.2020 under the Chairmanship of the Divisional Commissioner, North Hazaribagh, Chhota Nagpur Division, regarding the regularization or irregularly appointed employees in the Dhanbad district. In view of the aforesaid submission learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order; as such, no relief should be granted to the petitioners. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits it appears that before appointment, the petitioners were working on the post of Amin on a daily wage basis. An advertisement was issued for preparation of the panel so that from the panel, the appointment can be made, and minimum qualification was Intermediate and Amin training certificate. Petitioners, having requisite qualification, applied and call letters were issued for interview, and they appeared and were declared successful. 9. An advertisement was issued for preparation of the panel so that from the panel, the appointment can be made, and minimum qualification was Intermediate and Amin training certificate. Petitioners, having requisite qualification, applied and call letters were issued for interview, and they appeared and were declared successful. 9. It further transpires from records that all the petitioners have experience of more than 10 years. The petitioners made representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad as well as before the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 23.10.2018 and 24.10.2018 respectively for regularization of their service and reminder representation has also been given by the petitioners on 5.12.2018 thereafter petitioners filed the instant writ application and during pendency of this application petitioner came to know that the candidature of petitioners have been rejected for regularization which petitioners obtained under RTI Act. Thereafter petitioners filed I.A. No.1262 of 2025 challenging the same. 10. The ground for the rejection for the regularization of the petitioners is that they do not possess the qualification of I.T.I which has been made compulsory after the implementation of Jharkhand State Ameen Cadre (Recruitment, Promotion, and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2013; however, from bare perusal of notification no. 16440 dated 3.12.1980 wherein it has been stated at sl. No. 1(Ka) that for any appointment in Grade-III, no written and oral examination will be conducted and marks which have been allotted by the School and the college will be counted and on the basis of marks obtained in the College/School examination, merit list will be prepared and appointment will be done on that basis against sanctioned post. 11. For better appreciation notification dated 03.12.1980 relevant para 1 (Kha) is quoted herein below: 12. It further transpires that petitioners have been working since the year 2008 as per the notification of Personnel and administrative reform department, State of Bihar 1980. However, the ground taken by the respondent authorities that the implementation of Jharkhand State Ameen Cadre (Recruitment, Promotion, and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2013, qualification of I.T.I is compulsory; is not acceptable to this Court since the notification is not retrospective in operation. For this issue it is necessary to refer the judgement rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in A.A. Calton v. Director of Education , [ (1983) 3 SCC 33 ] , the relevant para of which reads as under: “5……. For this issue it is necessary to refer the judgement rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in A.A. Calton v. Director of Education , [ (1983) 3 SCC 33 ] , the relevant para of which reads as under: “5……. It is true that the legislature may pass laws with retrospective effect subject to the recognised constitutional limitations. 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…..” 13. As a matter of fact, the law is now no more res integra, inasmuch as, 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 Rules must be held to be prospective; as such, grounds taken by the respondent that they are not having qualification as per 2013 Rules is not sustainable in eyes of law. 14. Further, the ground taken by the respondents in para 8 of the Counter affidavit that they are not working in sanctioned and vacant post is falsified by the Annexure 13 dated 23.05.2023 by which the information has been provided under Right to Information Act wherein it has been stated that there are total 20 sanctioned posts of Ameen in which 08 is filled up and 12 posts are still vacant under the signature of Deputy Collector Establishment, Dhanbad (Annexure 13). 15. This issue of the regularization has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] . Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below: “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa , R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan : and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 16. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the instant Writ application is allowed and Annexure 14 with respect to proceeding dated 20.02.2020 by which claim of petitioner for regularization has been rejected, is hereby, quashed and set aside and the concerned respondent is directed to regularize the petitioners to the post of Ameen as they are working for more than 10 years as there are vacant sanctioned posts available in the department. The exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.