G. M. Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS case raises an important question about the interpretation of rule 15 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Combined Competitive Examination by Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1962.
(2.) ASHOK Dave, the petitioner appeared in these examinations conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and was declared successful having obtained 136th position in the list, called the merit list, published by the Public Service Commission on 20 8. 80 in Rajasthan Rajpatra Dated 9. 10. 80 (Part VII) pages 328, 329 and 330. The caption of the list is as under:- "rajasthan Rajya Sevayen Sanyukt Pratiyogi Pariksha, 1979 S. No. Roll No. Merit List. X X X 136 - 571 Prov ). " It is not in dispute that the roll No. of the petitioner was 5571. In all 3!6 candidates were included in the merit list. Since the petitioner's number was at S. No. 136. he was above more than half of the candidates. Even then, he was not appointed in the service. It was revealed that in spite of his being successful and meritorious and being above more than 170 candidates, his name was excluded from the appointments because he could not be adjusted in accordance with the preference, which he gave in the form filled in by him for appearing in these examinations. There are 8 services in all, out of which the first two, R. A. S. and R. P. S. are State Services, and the other 6 services are allied services. In the preference which the petitioner gave, he mentioned R. A. S. as the first, R. P. S. as the second, Raj. Accounts Service as the third, Raj Commercial Taxes Service as the fourth, Rajasthan Industries Services as the fifth, and the Rajasthan State Insurance Service as the sixth. The two services which remained are Rajasthan Co-operative-Service and Rajasthan Labour Welfare Service. In reply to the querry of the court, Mr. G. G. Sharma, the learned Addl. Government Advocate, obtained factual information from the Public Service Commission on the question whether the candidates having less marks have been appointed in these services in this examination. The factual position, as mentioned in the letter dated 24-4-81 No. F. 7 (5) Karmik (K) 4/81 issued by the Assistant Secretary to the government DO P. & A R. (A. IV) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, is that many of the candidates who secured less marks in the competitive test have been appointed in the Co-operative Service and Labour Welfare Service. But, the petitioner could not be appointed because he did not give the preference for these two services. It is, therefore, common ground between the parties that from the merit list in which the petitioner was shown at S. No. 136, many of the candidates who have secured less marks and were much below him have been appointed, but the petitioner has been refused the appointment.
(3.) THE question, therefore, convassed by Mr. Calla the learned counsel for the petitioner is that: once the petitioner is declared meritorious, as per the merit list published by the R. P. S. C. he cannot be deprived of his valuable right of appointment in any of the 8 services, when those candidates who are less meritorious are given appointments. This is so, argued Mr. Calla, even though a candidate fails to give all the preferences and gives only a few preferences. Mr. Sharma, the learned Addl. Government Advocate, vehemently opposed the writ petition on the ground that if the candidate fails to give all the preferences, then he can do so at his own peril, and he will have to face the consequences of his mistake. The facts not being in dispute, the sole point which requires abjudication is, whether inspite of being more meritorious, a candidate can be deprived of his appointment to the service merely because he has given only 6 preferences out of 8 and according to the merit he is eligible for being appointed only in those two services which have been left out while giving preference. As has been mentioned above, there are 8 services and it is a combined competitive examination. The merit list published by the R. P. S. C. in which the petitioner's position is 136 out of 316, has been published under rule 15. The learned Addl. Government Advocate also submitted that this list is published under rule 15 (4) of the Rules. Sub-Clause (3) contemplates that while preparing the list, due weightage should be given to the preferences. ;