K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, originally the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: (i) to quash the Endorsement bearing No. E (1) 105/85-86/ PSC, dated 16-5-1985 issued by the first Respondent, produced as Annexure-B. (ii) to direct the first Respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for selection to any one of the posts in Category-II of the State Civil Services. Subsequently, the petitioner has been permitted to amend the Petition and seek the following reliefs : (i) to declare the latter portion of the NOTE below Rule 4 (3) of the Karnataka Recruitment of gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as the 'rules'] as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (ii) to declare the selection of Respondent-2 to the post of Assistant Superintendent of Land records pursuant to the Notification dated 20th September, 1982, as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (iii) to direct the first respondent to delete the name of the 2nd respondent from the Select List and to substitute the name of the petitioner, or in the alternative insert the name of the petitioner between Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 in the Select List of Assistant Superintendents of Land Records, as notified under the Notification bearing No. E (1) 84-85-86 PSC dated 6-5-1985; and to grant such other reliefs as may be deemed fit for issue of appointment order to the petitioner. The additional relief No. (iii) is wider than the original relief No. (ii) and it takes into its fold the original relief No. (ii ). Consequently, original relief No. (ii) is rendered redundant. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the first respondent invited applications under the notification bearing No. E (1)2202/82-83/psc dated 20th September, 1982 for filling up of available vacancies in Category-I and II of Posts in the State Civil Services by direct recruitment, after holding a competitive examination in accordance with the provisions of the rules. The petitioner and the 2nd Respondent and several others submitted their applications. There was a written examination and viva-voce conducted by the first respondent in accordance with the Rules. In that, the petitioner secured 633 marks in total and the 2nd respondent secured 628 marks. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent both claimed as belonging to backward community. The petitioner and the 2nd Respondent and several others submitted their applications. There was a written examination and viva-voce conducted by the first respondent in accordance with the Rules. In that, the petitioner secured 633 marks in total and the 2nd respondent secured 628 marks. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent both claimed as belonging to backward community. ( 3 ) THE first respondent has selected the 2nd respondent far the past of Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, even though he has secured lesser marks than that of the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation before the first respondent as to why the 2nd respondent was selected ignoring the superior claim of the petitioner. The first respondent by the impugned endorsement dated 16-5-1985, bearing No. E (1)105/85-86/psc (Annexure-B) has intimated the petitioner that as he had not indicated the preference for the post of Assistant Superintendent of land Records, he was not selected. ( 4 ) THE further case of the petitioner is that a mere failure to mention the preference in Column no. 15 (1) of the application form, cannot be considered or construed that the petitioner did not wish to be considered for the post in question; that it only means that the petitioner intended that he should be considered for all the posts for which the recruitment was being made and as such it was incumbent upon the first respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner according to the Rules to any one of the posts under recruitment; that the latter portion of NOTE below rule 4 (3) of the Rules is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and as such it is invalid; that the selection of 2nd respondent who has secured lesser marks than that of the petitioner is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent belong to backward community and as the petitioner has secured higher marks than that of the 2nd respondent. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that as per the form prescribed by the Rules and also as per the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Rules, a candidate is required to specify clearly in his application the services covered by the category or categories of posts under recruitment, for which he wishes to be considered in the order of preference, and it is also further necessary that he must also mention those services to which he does not wish to be considered at all ; that in the absence of such specification in the application, the first respondent is entitled to reject the application itself ; therefore a mere fact that the petitioner is allowed to appear for the examination, it does not in any way confer any additional right on him when an application itself is incomplete, and suffers from fundamental errors; that under the circumstances, it is further contended that the fact that the petitioner is permitted to appear for the examination and has secured higher marks than that of the 2nd respondent, does not make any difference because the petitioner cannot at all be considered to have applied for the post of assistant Superintendent of Land Records as he has not mentioned that post in the Column No. 15 (1) of the application. It is also further contended that as per Rule 11 of the Rules, the first respondent is required to prepare the lists of names of candidates considered suitable for appointment for each of the services in categories I and II subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and Rule 10 of the Rules; that the first respondent is justified in not including the petitioner in the selected list as he has not specified the post in question in Column No. 15 (1) of the application. Respondents 1 and 3 have also placed before the Court all the relevant records of the case. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for consideration : (1) Whether the latter portion of the NOTE below Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? (2) Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not specified in Col. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for consideration : (1) Whether the latter portion of the NOTE below Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? (2) Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not specified in Col. No. 15 (i) of the application the post of Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, whether it can be held that he must be deemed to have not applied for the post of Assistant Superintendent of Land Records? (3) Whether the selection of respondent-2 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? ( 7 ) BEFORE taking up for consideration the aforesaid points it is relevant to notice that in this case, it is not in dispute that if it is held that the application of the petitioner amounts to applying for all the posts that were notified for recruitment including that of Assistant Superintendent of Land records, the petitioner ought to have been selected in place of the 2nd respondent because the petitioner and the 2nd respondent both belong to Backward Class Community category ; and the petitioner has secured 633 marks whereas the 2nd respondent has secured 628 marks. There is no other candidate in Backward Class Community who has been selected and who has secured lesser marks than that of the 2nd respondent. There is also no other candidate belonging to backward Class Community category who has secured more than 633 marks and has been excluded from selection. Therefore, the contest is only between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. ( 8 ) POINT NO I : Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules, are as follows : "3. Application.-- (1) (a) The provisions of these rules shall be applicable in respect of direct recruitment to the categories of posts in State Civil Services specified in column 3 of Schedule-I relating to the services specified in the corresponding entry of column 2 of the said Schedule. (b) The Government may, by order, amend Schedule-I for including any new categories of posts in any State Civil Service or for deleting any of the existing categories of posts in any State Civil service. (b) The Government may, by order, amend Schedule-I for including any new categories of posts in any State Civil Service or for deleting any of the existing categories of posts in any State Civil service. (2) These rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in ( i) the Cadre and Recruitment Rules for the time being in force applicable to the cadres in the state Civil Services referred to in Sub-rule (1), and (ii) the Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the Rules of the Recruitment specially made in respect of any service mentioned in Schedule-I such number of available vacancies as determined by Government in the cadres in the State Civil Services referred to in sub-rule (i) shall be filled up by the direct recruitment after holding a competitive examination by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of these rules. Holding of Competitive Examination.-- (1) A combined competitive examination for recruitment to one or more of the services or categories of posts mentioned in Schedule-I shall be held at such intervals, and in the manner set out in Schedule-II, as the State Government may determine. The Commission shall invite applications in the prescribed forms for the competitive examination from intending candidates who possess the prescribed qualifications. (3) Candidates who apply for the competitive examination shall indicate in their application forms their preference as to the Service/categories they would likely to be considered for appointment. Note.--Candidates are required to specify clearly in their applications, the services covered by the category/categories concerned for which they wish to be considered in the order of preference as well as those for which they do not wish to be considered at all. They may not be considered for services which are not mentioned even though these services may be covered by the category/categories for which they are applying. "The latter portion of the Note 16 Rule 4 (3) of the Rules, which is challenged as violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, is as follows : "they may not be considered for services which are not mentioned even though these services may be covered by the category/categories for which they are applying. "The latter portion of the Note 16 Rule 4 (3) of the Rules, which is challenged as violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, is as follows : "they may not be considered for services which are not mentioned even though these services may be covered by the category/categories for which they are applying. " Schedule I to the Rules, specifies the services, cadres and categories of posts to which the Rules apply in respect of available vacancies of those posts which are to be filled by direct recruitment. The post of Assistant Superintendent of Land Records belongs to the service known as "the karnataka General Service (Settlement and Land Records Branch)" which is one of the services specified in category-II at Sl. No. 15 in Schedule of the Rules. Therefore, the available vacancies in the category of Assistant Superintendent of Land Records have to be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with the Rules. ( 9 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid latter portion of the Note to Rule 4 (3) of the Rules, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is submitted that when a combined competitive examination is held for all the services for which the recruitment is made, the Rule which enables the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "commission") to eliminate a candidate or reject his candidature only on the ground that he has not mentioned his preference for any particular service or category or categories of posts results in denying equality and equal opportunity to a citizen in matters relating to employment or appointment to an office under the State. In my view, Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and the Note thereto, are only enabling provisions to facilitate the Commission to make recruitment. These provisions are not intended to deny the right to a candidate to compete in the selection for appointment to the post/s for which the applications are invited. ( 10 ) A survey of the provisions contained in Rules 3 to 12 and Schedules I and II thereto, abundantly make it clear that no separate examination is prescribed to test the suitability of a candidate for any particular cadre or post in Categories I and. ( 10 ) A survey of the provisions contained in Rules 3 to 12 and Schedules I and II thereto, abundantly make it clear that no separate examination is prescribed to test the suitability of a candidate for any particular cadre or post in Categories I and. The examination prescribed is one and the same for all services and posts in Categories I and II except that for Category-I post, additional papers up to a total of 400 marks are prescribed. The lower age limit of the candidates is the same for all services and categories. However, the upper age limit varies according to the class to which the candidates belong ; such as, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward tribe, Backward Class or Backward Communities and Ex-Service Men. Academic qualification for all the services and categories is the same inasmuch as a candidate to be eligible for recruitment under the Rules, must possess Bachelor Degree of any University established by law in India or a qualification recognised as an equivalent to such an examination, by the government. After conducting a competitive examination as per the Rules, the Commission is required to call for a personality test as far as may be ten times the number of candidates as there are vacancies in the services in Categories I and 11 respectively, in order of merit on the basis of the results of written papers subject to making provisions for calling candidates belonging to scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes. Backward Tribes and other Backward Classes to the extent vacancies are reserved for them. In the end, the Commission is required to prepare separate lists of names of candidates suitable for appointment for each of the services in categories I and II arranged in the order of merit determined on the basis of total number of marks secured, in the written and viva-voce examinations, subject however that name of a candidate is not included in more than one such lists. The lists so prepared have to be published by the Commission in the official Gazette and the copies thereof shall have to be forwarded to the Government together with the marks secured by each candidate in the written and viva-voce examination, and also to each candidate whose name is included in such lists. The lists so prepared have to be published by the Commission in the official Gazette and the copies thereof shall have to be forwarded to the Government together with the marks secured by each candidate in the written and viva-voce examination, and also to each candidate whose name is included in such lists. Candidates whose names are included in the lists prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Rules, are entitled to be considered for appointment to the vacancies notified in each of the services and categories of posts in the order in which their names appear in the lists. However, Rule 12 further provides that the inclusion of a candidate's name in a list by Itself confers no right to appointment unless the Government is satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable in all respect for appointment to Government services. ( 11 ) THE object of holding a single competitive examination for several services in Categories I and II is to test the suitability of candidates for several categories of services. Those who succeed in the examination in the order of merit are considered suitable for all the services in categories I and. The list of candidates so selected and found suitable are prepared and published in the order of merit. This type of recruitment by open competition aims at and ensure equality of opportunity in the matter of employment and secures the services of the most meritorious candidates. This being the position, it matters very little whether a candidate mentions in his application in the order of preference, the category or categories of services to which he desires to be considered as well as those for which he does not wish to be considered. The only difference between the recruitment to services under categories I and II is that in the case of recruitment to services under Category-I, a candidate has to offer additional papers upto a total of four hundred marks as detailed in Annexure-I to the Rules. Therefore, it is necessary for a candidate, who intends to compete for recruitment to services in Category-I to indicate in column No. 16 (ii) of the application two additional papers which he desires to offer for the competitive examination, among those listed in part III of Annexure-I to the Rules. Therefore, it is necessary for a candidate, who intends to compete for recruitment to services in Category-I to indicate in column No. 16 (ii) of the application two additional papers which he desires to offer for the competitive examination, among those listed in part III of Annexure-I to the Rules. If additional papers are not indicated and only three optional papers are indicated, it only follows that such candidate intends to compete for the services under Category-II only and not to any of the services under Category -. On the contrary, if a candidate indicates three optional papers as well as two additional papers, in column No. 16 (i) and (ii) of the application, it follows that the candidate intends to compete for all the services in categories I and. It is already pointed out that the Commission is required to prepare separate lists of names of candidates considered suitable for appointment for each of the services in categories I and II in the order of merits. Therefore, it follows that even if Column No. 15 is not filled up it does not affect the application and by reason of that, the application cannot be considered incomplete, because the information sought for through Column No. 15 only gives an option to the candidate to choose the category of services for which he wants to be considered and such of those services for which be does not wish to be considered. Non-exercise of option in respect of a non-essential matter cannot be held to invalidate the application. If a candidate fills up column No. 15, it only facilitates, rather it may render to a certain extent easy the task of the Commission in preparing the lists of selected candidates. That being the position, if Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and the Note thereto, are held that such of the applications which do not contain the indications as required by column No. 15 (i) and (ii) of the application, are liable to be rejected ; it will result in denial of equality of opportunity and equal treatment in the matter of employment, and some times it may even eliminate meritorious candidates ; as such it would become violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and the Note thereto, are not worded in such mandatory terms and construction or interpretation of the same in such a manner does not conform to the object and intendment of the Rules which aim at recruitment by open competition to attract the best talents. It is also one of the cardinal principles of interpretation that an attempt of the Court in the first instance must be, to read and construe the law in such a manner that it does not result in its invalidity. Hence, I am of the view that the latter portion of the Note to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules, is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as non-compliance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and the Note thereto does not render an application defective so as to result in its rejection. The Commission is not entitled to reject the application on the ground that column No. 15 of the application has not been tilled up as required by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and the Note thereto. ( 12 ) IN order to find out whether a candidate is competing for services under Category-I or category-II, the Commission has to look into column No. 16 of the application. If the candidate bas offered three optional papers and no additional papers, it follows that he intends to compete for recruitment to services in Category-II only. On the contrary, if a candidate has indicated the three optional papers as well as two additional papers, such a candidate must be taken to have indicated his intention to compete for recruitment to the services under Categories I and II, for which the recruitment is proposed to be held. The indication of the preferences and indication of the services to which a candidate does not wish to be considered, are also intended to facilitate the Commission in preparing the lists of candidates in the order of merits. Therefore, the twin objects of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and the Note thereto, are to provide an opportunity to the candidates to exercise their option as to the services for which they want to be considered and also such of those services for which they do not want to be considered, and also to facilitate the commission in discharging its function in the matter of recruitment under the Rules. It is not intended to invalidate the applications and reject the same on the ground that the indications as required by column No. 15 and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and the Note thereto, are absent. Point No. (1) is answered in the negative. ( 13 ) POINT NO. (2) : In column No. 15 of the application consists of two parts. First part requires a candidate to indicate in the order of preference the services and cadre of posts in categories I and II to which he Intends to be considered. Second part requires a candidate to indicate the services and cadres of posts to which he does not wish to be considered in the recruitment. The application is common to all the services under categories I and II to which the recruitment is held. The title of the application which is in the prescribed form, itself is as follows: "application form for admission to the Combined Competitive Examination for recruitment to the post of Gazetted Probationers in the Karnataka State Civil Services. " the Notification dated 20th September, 1982 issued by the Commission calling for applications, states the categories of services for recruitment to the same, the applications in the prescribed form are invited for admission to the aforesaid combined competitive examination. Column No. 16 of the application requires the candidates to indicate the three optional papers and two additional papers. Non mentioning of the preferences and not indicating the services to which a candidate does not wish to be considered, do not render an application invalid. In toe absence of mentioning the particulars as required by Column No. 15 (i) and (ii) of the application, the only reasonable way of construing such an application is that the applicant in case he has offered three optional papers and two additional papers, intends to compete for all the services in both the categories to which the recruitment is proposed. Similarly, if such an applicant has only offered three optional papers, he must be taken to have indicated that he intends to compete for all the services under Category II for which the recruitment is proposed. Similarly, if such an applicant has only offered three optional papers, he must be taken to have indicated that he intends to compete for all the services under Category II for which the recruitment is proposed. ( 14 ) IT is not possible to accept the contention of Sri Reddy, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, that the lists of selected candidates as par Rule 11 have to be prepared subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and Rule 10 of the Rules; therefore, in the absence of mentioning the preferences in Column No. 15 (i) of the application the application is rendered invalid and the Commission is justified in not selecting such a candidate to the services for which he has not indicated his preference As long as a candidate does not indicate the services to which be does not wish to be considered, whether or not he indicates the services in the order of preference in Col. 15 (i) of the application, he must be held to have offered his candidature for recruitment to all those services to which the recruitment is proposed. It is only when a candidate mentions the services for which he does not wish to be considered, he excludes himself for being considered for recruitment to such services, but not otherwise. In the instant case, the petitioner has not indicated in column 15 (ii) of the application, the services for which he does not wish to be considered. In addition to this he has offered three optional papers and two additional papers. Thus, it follows that he must be deemed to have applied for the services in Categories I and II to which the recruitment is proposed. The post of Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, as already pointed out belongs to Category -. For the reasons stated above, Point No. (2) is answered as follows : even though the petitioner has not specified in Column No. 15 (i) of the application the post of assistant Superintendent of Land Records, as he has not indicated that he does not wish to be considered for that post as required by column No. 15 (ii) of the application, he must be deemed to have applied for the post of Assistant Superintendent of Land Records also in addition to posts of other services. ( 15 ) POINT NO. ( 15 ) POINT NO. (3): This point should not detain us long. As it is pointed in para-7 of this order, the petitioner has secured more marks than that of the 2nd respondent. Consequently, he ought to have been selected in place of the 2nd respondent. The selection of the 2nd respondent ignoring the superior claim of the petitioner is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because the petitioner is found to be more meritorious than that of the 2nd respondent. It is also not the case of the Commission that the petitioner is cot found suitable for the post. The selection of the 2nd respondent ignoring the superior claim of the petitioner, is nothing but subversion of the aims and objects of the recruitment by open competition. Therefore, it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Point No. 3 is answered accordingly. ( 16 ) IT may also be mentioned here that after hearing this petition for some time and on being satisfied that it would not be possible to sustain the selection of the 2nd respondent, the petition was adjourned to enable the State Government to find out whether it would be possible to create additional post to accommodate the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the matter came up on 9-4-1986 and on that day, Sri Devadas learned High Court Government Pleader, submitted that it was not possible for the State Government to create additional post. Therefore, the matter was further heard and decided by this order. ( 17 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms; (1) The Endorsement dated 16-5-1085 bearing No. E (1) 105/85-86/psc, produced as annexure-B, issued by the first Respondent, is hereby quashed. (2) The selection and appointment of the 2nd Respondent to the post of the Assistant superintendent of Land Records, made pursuant to the Notification No. E (1) 2202/82-83/psc on 20-9-1982 published in the Gazette of 7th October, 1982, is hereby quashed. The first-respondent is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the list of candidates selected for appointment as Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, made pursuant to the Notification dated 20-9-1982 bearing No. E (1)2202/82-83/psc in place of the 2nd Respondent and transmit the same to the State Government. The State Government in turn, is directed to act upon it in accordance with law. The State Government in turn, is directed to act upon it in accordance with law. (3) Note below Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules, is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. ( 18 ) SINCE the 2nd respondent is functioning as Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, pursuant to his appointment, it is natural that be intends to take up the matter in appeal. Therefore, to enable the 2nd respondent to avail the remedy of an appeal, the order just now pronounced is stayed up to 30th May, 1986.