IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1752 of 2010 alongwith CWP Nos. 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757 and 1758 of 2010. Date of decision: 16.6.2010. 1. CWP No. 1752 of 2010. Nand Lal ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent. 2. CWP No. 1753 of 2010 Babu Lal ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ...Respondents. 3. CWP No. 1754 of 2010. Rajender Paul ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent. 4. CWP No. 1755 of 2010. Rajender Prashad ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent. 5. CWP No. 1756 of 2010. Rakesh Kumar ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent. 6. CWP No. 1757 of 2010. Vinod Kumar ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent. - 2 - 7. CWP No. 1758 of 2010. Shashi Pal ..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh , Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General, for respondents. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice (Oral) The petitioners in these cases are the candidates, who have applied for appointment for the post of TGT (Arts). As per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2009, as they existed at the time of commencement of the selection process, the petitioners are duly qualified. It is seen that after issuing the interview cards, the Rules were amended in October 2009 and as per the amendment, the petitioners do not possess the required qualification in terms of the subject combination under Rule 7. 2. It is now settled law, as per various judgements of the apex court reported in Y.V.Rangaiah and others vs. J. Sreevivasa Rao and others (1983) 3 SCC 284, A Manoharan and others vs. Union of India and others (2008)3 SCC 641 and State of Rajasthan vs. R. Dayal and others (1997) 10 SCC 419 that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-way. The vacancies while existed prior to the - 3 - amendment should be governed by the rules which existed at the time of commencement of the selection process. In other words, once the selection process commenced, the Rules cannot be amended so as to affect the vacancies, which existed prior to the amendment of the rules. Therefore, all the vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and for which the selection process commenced are to be governed only by the pre-amended rules. In case the petitioners, who are governed by the pre-amended rules, are qualified for consideration in respect of vacancies, which existed prior to the amendment have not been considered, they shall be considered against those vacancies existed prior to the amendment and for which the selection process had already been commenced. Needful in the light of what has been held above shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this judgement. The petitions stand disposed of so also the pending applications. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Kuldip Singh), June 16, 2010. (GR) Judge.