A candidate selected for a post under the existing recruitment rules acquires a right to be considered for selection in accordance with those rules, and this right cannot be affected by a subsequent amendment of the rules unless the amending rule is retrospective in nature.

The writ petitioner has prayed for a writ of Mandamus upon the Respondents Nos. 2 & 3 for giving him appointment as Stenographer for the post of which he was duly selected along with Respondent No 4 and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 asked him to be medically examined and to fill in police verification report. The petitioner's case is as follows:

2. The petitioner was called for interview on 23.6 1988 by the Respondents along with other candidates on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Stenographer. He was directed by the Respondent No.3 by the letter dated 83.1989 to fill in verification report for police verification and submit Medical Examination Report from the Chief Medical Officer Health, Purulia. He was further intimated that on receiving the said reports further action for the appointment of Stenographer would be taken. He obtained the medical examination report dated 10.3.1989 and submitted the same to the Respondent He also filled in Police verification form and submitted it on 10.3.89. In .the meantime the Respondent No.4 was duly appointed on or about June 1989. But even though there were two posts, the petitioner has not been given any appointment even though he along with Respondent No.4 was selected to the two vacant post of Stenographers. The petitioner has demanded justice from the Respondents and as no action was taken the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. As in the meantime the writ petitioner's learned Advocate has received the reply from the respondent no. 3 dated 23.2.1990 that as the meantime the recruirment policy of the stenographer has been changed, no appointment can be given to the petitioner on the basis of the selection made by the Directorate. The writ petitioner has, therefore, submitted a supplementary affidavit impugning the above letter. In the supplementary affidavit it is contended that when the process of the selection of the petitioner as a Steno grapher concerned long before the new recruitment policy of stenographer was implemented sometime in August 1989 then only because there was delay in receiving the report of the Police Verification the respondent no. 3 cannot refuse to give the petitioner appointment when he was already selected for the post under the recruitment policy then prevafling and the recruitment policy cannot have retrospective effect to deny the petitioner appointment. It is also submitted that the amended rule cannot be applied to invalidate the selection made by the Directorate prior to commencement of the amended rule and a right has been created in his favour after being selected for the post of the Stenographer in accordance with the terms and conditions of the then existing rules and that his selection being valid and legal appointment should be given and denial of appointment on the plea of amended rule is manifestly illegal and completely unwarranted. Even though the Respondents have been directed to file affidavit but no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondents.

4. The learned" Advocate for the respondent has produced the new recruitment rules of stenographer issued by the Finance (Audit) Department. Government of West Bengal being No. 9650-F dated 22nd August 1989 and has submitted the letter annexed with the supplementary affidavit is the reason for not granting the petitioner's appointment as stenographer because before such appointment could be' given on receiving the police verification rep ort the new recruitment rules have come into force and the Respondent No.3 has therefore not issued the appointment letter became the recruitment policy of the stenographers has not been charged and the recruitment has to be made through the Public Service Commission and that is reason for the refusal to issue the appointment letter infavour of the petitioner.

5. On hearing submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State it has been made cle