G.M. Lodha, J.—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)." 3. 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 petitioners number was at S. No. 136. he was above more than half of the candidates. Even then, he was not appointed in the service. 4. 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. 5. 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 two services which remained are Rajasthan Co-operative-Service and Rajasthan Labour Welfare Service. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 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 petitioners 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. 10. Rule 15 reads as under :- "15. Recommendations of the Commission. (1)—The Commission shall prepare for each service, a list of the candidates arranged in order of merit of the candidates as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the Commission shall arrange their names in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the service : Provided that :- x x x x x x x x (3) The Commission, while giving weight to the preference for the posts in the different services expressed by a candidate in his application, may recommend him for appointment to any post in any such service for which it considers him suitable. (4) The list compiled under this rule shall be immediately sent to the Government and also be published for general information. X X X X 11. The above would show that the rules contemplate publication of a list showing the merit of each candidate. Once, a joint list is published, it becomes the duty of the Government to appoint candidates from them and while doing so, due weight age should be given to the preferences given by them, as per the list separately sent by the Commission under sub clause (3). 12. It is true that the preferences, initially be adjusted by the Commission under sub-rule (3) of rue 15, but it is immaterial whether it is to be done by the P.S.C. or by the State Government, because that is only a question of procedure. The candidate who gets merit, in the merit list published by the P.S.C. can always claim that even if he cannot be adjusted amongst the preferences given by him, and if he is more meritorious than other persons, he should be adjusted amongst both services which remain as a residuary to his preferences. The candidate who gets merit, in the merit list published by the P.S.C. can always claim that even if he cannot be adjusted amongst the preferences given by him, and if he is more meritorious than other persons, he should be adjusted amongst both services which remain as a residuary to his preferences. To make the above clear in the instant case, the six preferences given by the petitioner could not be availed of by him, because he was not so meritorious. But, so far as the two services of Co-operative and Labour ate concerned, though he did not give any preference for them, but he was more meritorious than the candidates who were selected in them. This factual position is not in dispute as per the letter read by Mr. G.G. Sharma, a copy of which has been placed on record. 13. Mr. Sharma submitted that even though there is no prohibition clause in rule 15 or anywhere else, yet by inference the petitioner must be deprived, because he did not give the preferences of Co-operative and Labour. I am not inclined to accept this interpretation given by the respondents, because it is well established principle of interpretation of Statute that unless there is a prohibition clause or a penalty clause, a rule cannot be held to be mandatory. A reference may be made to Jagannath v. Jaswant Singh (1). The rule about preferences is directory and not mandatory. 14. I am of the opinion that in case the petitioner has failed to give the last two preferences, they should be deemed to be implied and it was the duty both of the R.P.S.C. and the Government to tabulate the merit list by giving him the appointment in the service,either of Co-operative or Labour,before the candidate who was less meritorious. 15. Mr. Sharma submitted that the government under the rules is required to strictly follow the recommendations of the P.S.C. and it has got no option. 15. Mr. Sharma submitted that the government under the rules is required to strictly follow the recommendations of the P.S.C. and it has got no option. Even if that is taken as true and correct position of law, then also there is no difficulty in granting relief, because it is the duty of the P.S.C. initially to adjust the merit in such a manner that after adjusting the preferences given by the candidates, if someone has given only a few preferences out of 8, then also he must be placed above those who has got less marks in the merit. 16. It is true that in a given case it would creat enormous difficulty to the P.S.C, but unless a clause providing for the penalty or consequences of non-giving of some preferences is enacted in the rule, I cannot deprive the meritorious person from appointment, because of his lapse or mistake, which can only be treated as irregularity in view of the present position of law, as contained in the rule. I am also convinced that the interpretation which I have taken would enhance justice and is more equitable, and in no way it would do any violence to the relevant rules, mentioned above. This is so for the simple reason that rejecting the head and appointing the tail would be against all cannons of justice and law and, such an absurdity should not be permitted unless the Legislature in-clear terms contemplates so. 17. The result is, that this writ petiton is accepted. Rule 15(3) and (4) are held to be directory. The respondents R.P.S.C. and the Rajasthan State Government are directed to take steps to appoint the petitioner either in Rajasthan Co-operative Service or Rajasthan Labour Service. However, while doing so, since by this time some other persons less meritorious in his place had already been appointed, the respondents are given liberty not to disturb them, and appoint the petitioner in 1981 quota, if there is no existing vacancy in 1980 quota. The parties would bear their own costs.