( 1 ) THE petitioner claims appointment under the Dying- in-Harness Rules and has accordingly applied for.

( 2 ) SHRI R. C. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners case has been refused by order dated 13. 11. 1998 which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In the said order, it has been pointed out that the petitioner did not possess the educational qualification for being appointed in the post, however, his case may be considered for appointment against a Class IV post. He further submits that at the time when the petitioner had submitted his application, his qualification was intermediate but subsequent thereto the qualification has been upgraded. According to him. subsequent amendment cannot be applied in the case of the petitioner. He relies on the decision in the case of Kripa Shankar Yadav v. State of U. P. and others, 1998 (3)ESC 2237 (All ). In the said decision, it was held that a candidate must possess the minimum qualification on the date of submission of application form. Any subsequent amendment in the statute/regulations granting any relief to the candidate with regards to exemption/curtailment of minimum qualification afte