A.K. Basheer, J.

The short but important question that arises for consideration in this bunch of cases is whether the Kerala Public Service Commission is justified in refusing to advise candidates like the petitioners included in the rank list of Pharmacist (Homoeopathy) on the ground that they did not possess requisite qualification in terms of the amended special rules framed by the Government after commencement of the selection process. In other words, the question is: Are the amended rules regarding qualification, atleast vis-a-vis the appellant and petitioners, prospective or retrospective in their operation?

2. A brief reference to the essential facts is necessary to answer the above question. We will be referring to the relevant dates and documents available in Writ Petition No.18087/2005.

3. The Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission) issued Ext.P1 notification in the Kerala Gazette on October 27, 1998 inviting applications for appointment, to the post, of Pharmacist (Homoeopathy) in the Department of Homoeopathy. The common notification was issued for filling up the several vacancies in 8 districts in the State. The qualifications prescribed were:

(1) A pass in SSLC examination or equivalent.

(2) Experience in dispensing homoeopathic medicine for not less than 3 years in Government Homoeopathic Hospital/Dispensary or in a dispensary run by a registered A Class Homoeopathic Medical Practitioner.

The above qualifications were in terms of those prescribed in G.O.(Ms)161/84/HG dated 21.6.1984. It is not in dispute that the selection process was completed and separate districtwise rank lists were published on various dates between April 2002 and January 2003. Admittedly the petitioners were included in the rank lists of their respective districts.

4. On April 12, 1999, the Government of Kerala framed Special Rules for the Kerala Homoeopathy Subordinate Service vide SRO.No.397 /1999. Qualifications for the post of Pharmacists (Homoeopathy) ware prescribed in the Special Rules as hereunder:

It can be seen that a certificate in Nurse-cum-Pharmacist Training Course (Homeopathy) conducted by the Government of Kerala or its equivalent became an essential qualification for the post of Pharmacists (Homoeopathy). A true photo copy of the notification has been produced as Ext.R2(f).

5. The admitted position is that the Special Rules were framed by the Government when the selection process pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Commission was in progress. The petitioners had not undergone training in Nurse-Cum-Pharmacist Training Course conducted by the Government of Kerala and therefore they would not be eligible for appointment, if the Special Rules are made applicable for selection and appointment.

6. After publication of the rank list, the Commission filled up only those vacancies which had arisen prior to the framing of the Special Rules which came into force with effect from April 12, 1999. The Commission took the views at the petitioners and other similarly placed candidates in the Rank lists who did not possess a certificate in Nurse-Cum-Pharmacist Training Course (Homoeopathy) as prescribed under the Special Rules were not eligible or entitled to be advised for appointment. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioners whose names have been included in the rank lists of various districts have come up before this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

7. A learned single Judge before whom one of the identical Writ Petitions (W.P.No.15076/2005) came up earlier held that in view of the introduction of the Special Rules, the petitioner in that Writ Petition who did not admittedly possess the requisite qualification was not entitled to be advised for appointment. Thus the learned single Judge accepted the contention of the Commission that only those among the candidates who had the requisite qualification as prescribed under the Special Rules were entitled to be advised and accordin