rule book, when the writ petitioners applied in response to the recruitment notification. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, their rights will have to be governed by the rule position that prevailed when the selection process commenced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2010) 13 SCC 467 (State of Bihar and Others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar) held that the norms or rules that existed on the date when the process of selection begun will control such selection and any alteration to such norms would not affect the continuing process, unless the same was given retrospective effect. A careful reading of G.O. (Ms) No.386, dated 14.09.2021 indicates that it was not meant to operative retrospectively but only prospectively. The learned Additional Advocate General placed heavy reliance on the decision in Tej Prakash Pathak's case supra . Though the said decision is fairly supportive of the stand now taken by the respondents, the final paragraph indicates that no authoritative pronouncement was made. The said decision concludes as follows “whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the “rules of the game” stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement”. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench and the decision is still awaited. Therefore, I have to necessarily come to the conclusion that no definitive pronouncement was rendered in the said decision. The subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322 (V.Lavanya and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep.
