JUDGMENT 1. - The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that despite his meritorious success in a competitive examination, appointment has been denied to him by the Appointing Authority on an erroneous interpretation of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 2. The controversy involved is simple and lies within a narrow compass. The Rajasthan Police Service Commission invited applications in the prescribed form for direct recruitment for the pots of Sub-inspector of Civil Police including Intelligence Branch, Armed Police and Platoon Commander (Rajasthan Armed Constabulary) in 19s I. Column No. 1 of the application form related to the order of preference for the posts to be filled in by the candidate. The petitioner in his application form (Anx. R/1) expressed his preference only for Civil Police and Intelligence Branch falling under Section-1 of rule 4 of the Rules. In the examination conducted (including written, Aptitude Test and interview), the petitioner secured 95th position by obtaining 306 marks out of the total of 500. Since, he was not in the merit list prepared for the posts of Civil Police and Intelligence Branch in accordance with the preference expressed by him he was not appointed. Though. he could be appointed in the Armed Police and Rajasthan Armed Constabulary according to his position in order of merit, he was not appointed for the simple reason that he had not expressed his preference for them in Column No. 1 of his application form. It was alleged by the petition that three candidates being respondents No. 4, 5 and at position 96th to 98th in the merit list, though less meritorious to him were appointed to the posts of Platoon Commanders in Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. This amounts to a clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents viz. State of Rajasthan. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Inspector General of Police (IPG) to appoint him in any of the Sections of of Sub-Inspector according to his position in the merit list prepared for the purpose. 3. It was prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents viz. State of Rajasthan. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Inspector General of Police (IPG) to appoint him in any of the Sections of of Sub-Inspector according to his position in the merit list prepared for the purpose. 3. The petition was opposed by respondents No. 1 to 3 and 6, though through separate written replies, but on the common ground that since the petitioners had expressed his preference only for, (1) Civil Police, and (2) Intelligence Branch, he cannot be considered for appointment to any other section of service viz., Armed Police or Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. He was not in the merit list prepared for the posts of hit preference appointment in those branches (Civil Police and Intelligence Branch) was rightly refused to him. 4. In his petition the petitioner has alleged that the examination of the service was conducted under the Rajasthan State and Sub-ordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 whereas, it was conducted under the Rajasthan Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1974. It appears that mistake, in mentioning the wrong rules has crept in, due to inadvertence and over-sight It does not affect the merits of the dispute involved and is so slight as to take any notice of it. Wrong mentioning of the rules is not sufficient to throw away the case over-board, especially when, no prejudice has been caused to the respondents. The respondents have opposed the petition being fully alive to the fact that the examination was conducted under Rules, 1974. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner secured 95th position in the competitive examination. In the application form, he expressed his preference only for one section of service consisting of Civil Police and Intelligence Branch. He could not secure a proper position in the merit list for appointment to the service of this section Candidates securing position lower than him in the merit. have been appointed in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. He was not considered for appointment as Platoon Commander in the Rajasthan in Armed Constabulary solely on the ground that he had not expressed his preference for it in his application form. 6. In view of these admitted facts, the sole question arising for deliberation and decisions is whether an appointment can be denied to the petitioner in any other section of service viz. 6. In view of these admitted facts, the sole question arising for deliberation and decisions is whether an appointment can be denied to the petitioner in any other section of service viz. Armed Policy or Rajasthan Armed Constabulary on the ground that he did not express his preference for them in the application form filled in by him even though he is fully qualified for appointment on the basis of his position in the merit list. Mr. Mridul, strenuously contended that the commission the part of the petitioner in not making preference for more than one sections of service, does not state in his way for appointment in any other section of service. It was argued that the Rules no where provide that the appointment will be made in accordance with the preference made by the candidate in his application form. Appointments under rule 22 are made in order of merit list prepared by the Authority etc. mentioned in rule 20 of the Rules. As such, making no preference at all or making preference for one section of service does not disentitle a candidate for appointment in any other sections of service provided the order of merit list permits so. Reliance was place.' on Ashok Dave v. State of Rajasthan (1941 R.L.W. 545). The contention has considerable force. 7. Rule 4 in part-II of the Rules relating to composition of service states that it shall consist of four sections, viz., "SECTION-1. Civil Police including Intelligence Branch. SECTION-II. Armed Police including Mewar Bhil Corps;SECTION-III. Police Wireless Organisation,SECTION-IV. Rajasthan Armed Constabulary " 8. Part-III pertains to method of recruitment. Part-IV deals with procedure for direct recruitment. Rule 19 occurring in this part speaks of conducting the competitive examination-both written and interview. Rule 20 speaks of Recommendations of the Board, it reads : "20. Recommendations of the Board ;-The Board shall prepare a list of candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned, arranged in order of merit and forward the same to the Inspector General of Police who shall in his turn intimate to the Appointing Authority concerned the names of the candidates in order of merit as mentioned in the list upto the number of vacancy available." 9. Rule 22, which has a direct bearing on the present controversy relates to Selection and Appointment by the Appointing Authority, it reads; "22. Rule 22, which has a direct bearing on the present controversy relates to Selection and Appointment by the Appointing Authority, it reads; "22. Selection by the Appointing Authority; (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 7, the Appointing Authority shall select and appoint candidates who stand highest in order of met it in the list prepared by the Authority, Recruitment Board/Commission under Rule 16/20. Provided that the inclusion of a candidate's name in the list confers no right to appointment, unless the Appointing Authority, if satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable in all other respects for appointment to the post concerned. (2) ... .... .. (not necessary to be reproduced as it is not relevant for our purpose)." 10. Rule 22 in explicit terms and by incorporating the word ' shall" casts mandate on the Appointing Authority to select and appoint candidates, who stand at highest in order of merit list prepared by the Authority etc. under rule 16/20, unless the case is covered by the proviso. There is no ambiguity or obscurity in rule 22. No choice or discretion is left with the Appointing Authority to deviate from the express provisions of rule 22 of the Rules Rule 22, does not speak that appointments will be made keeping in view, the preference expressed by the candidate in his application form. The preference of the candidate nowhere conies into play in the whole scheme of the rules. When the preference expressed by the candidate in his application form, cannot be taken into consideration, the preference so made has no relevancy or beaning in the matter of appointment. Viewed in this perspective, it can be slid without the least hesitation that making no preference at all, or making preference for one and not for all the sections of service in the application form, is neither fatal nor results in any penal consequences. 11. The instant case in my hand, stands on a higher pedestal than that of Ashok Dave's case (supra). In that case, the provision of the Rajasthan State Sub-ordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962 came for judicial scrutiny. Sub-rule (3) of rule 15 of those Rules, which deals with the preference expressed by a candidate in his application form, reads as under : "15. Recommendations of the Commission,- (1) ...... ...... (2) ...... ...... In that case, the provision of the Rajasthan State Sub-ordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962 came for judicial scrutiny. Sub-rule (3) of rule 15 of those Rules, which deals with the preference expressed by a candidate in his application form, reads as under : "15. Recommendations of the Commission,- (1) ...... ...... (2) ...... ...... (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) .... 12. The candidate Ashok Dave (supra) had expressed preference for some of the services and not for all in his application form. He was not in the metritis prepared for the services of his preference. A contention was raised by the State the he could not be appointed in other services for which he made no preference in his application form. The contention was rejected and it was observed in para 14 of the judgment; "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 she R P.S.C. and the Government to tabulate the merit list by giving him the appointment in the service, either of Cooperative or Labour, before the candidate who was less meritorious." 13. Rule 15 of the above Rules does speak about preference and yet, the contention was rejected. Here, in the instant case, the rules do not at all speak about the preference expressed by the candidate in his application form. The rules do not say that weight is to be given in the preference made by candidate in the matter of appointment. A such, the matter of making or not making the preference in Column No. 1 of the application form loses its entire significance. 14. Viewed and examined from any angle, rule 22 drives us to one and only one conclusion that appointments are to be made strictly in order of merit list prepared by the Authority. A such, the matter of making or not making the preference in Column No. 1 of the application form loses its entire significance. 14. Viewed and examined from any angle, rule 22 drives us to one and only one conclusion that appointments are to be made strictly in order of merit list prepared by the Authority. The rule is conspicuously silent about the preference made by the candidate in his application form The petitioner is, therefore, entitled for appointment is any of the sections of service referred to in ruse 4 (except section-III) at the place before the candidates less meritorious to him, were appointed. 15. In the result, the petition is allowed, Respondents No, 1, 2 and 3, viz. State of Rajasthan. Public Service Commission, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Inspector General of Police.,Rajasthan, Jaipur are directed to take steps to appoint the petitioner in any of the sections of service mentioned in rule 4 (except Section-III-Police Wireless Organisation) in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the Rajasthan Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1974. 16. No order as to cost. *******