S.N.Sahay, J. - (1.) In pursuance of advertisement, issued by the Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Master in Computer Applications (in brief M.C.A.) It was provided in the said advertisement that the qualification and experience, for the post would be as per UGC norms. The petitioner was called for interview. He appeared before the Selection Committee for interview on 20-2-1991 and was recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment. However, the opposite parties did not approve the recommendation, made by the Selection Committee and re-advertised the posts. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties the petitioner has filed writ petition No. 65 of 1991 (S/B) and has prayed that a writ of mandamus may be issued commanding the opposite parties to grant approval to the selection of the petitioner in pursuance of the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated February 20, 1991. Certain other incidental reliefs have also been claimed by the petitioner.
(2.) From the submissions made by the learned counsel, for the opposite party No 3 and the counter-affidavit, filed on his behalf, it appears that on July 25, 1991, a meeting of the Principals of certain Engineering Colleges was held by the State Government and it was decided that in order to provide better standard of education in Computer Science, the qualifications should be changed. A copy of the decision taken by the said Committee has been filed as Annexure A.-6 to the counter-affidavit. It is stated that in view of the policy decision taken by the said Committee, the Board of Governess of this aforesaid Institute did not approve the Selection made on the basis of advertisement previously issued and proceeded to re-advertise the posts. Annexure A-6 will clearly show that the decision taken by the Committee on July 25, 1991 is in the nature of a policy decision. It was to be enforced by the respective Engineering Colleges under the directions of the State Governments but this did not imply that the said decision could be given retrospective effect of its own force,
(3.) In Y.V. Rangatah v. Srinivasa Rao, AIR 1983 SC 852 it was held that where the recruitment rules are amended, the vacancies that occurred prior to amendment in the rules shall be filled in accordance with the then existing Rules. The same view was taken in P. Mahendra and others v. State of Karnataka and others, (1990) 1 SCC 411 in which it was observed as follows : "Admittedly the amending Rules do not contain any provision enforcing the amended Rules with retrospective effect. In the absence of any express provision contained in the amending Rules, it must be held to be prospective in nature. The rules which are prospective in nature cannot take away or impair the right of candidate holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as on the date of making appointment as well as on the date of scrutiny by the Commission, as they were qualified for selection and appointment,";