JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioner filed this writ petition for seeking relief that the petitioner be treated as 'Departmental Candidate' not at par with the open market candidates. Further, seeks directions to the respondents to treat the petitioner as 'Departmental Candidate' and so the petitioner may be called for interview by the R.P.S.C. for Rajasthan Subordinate Services. 2. The petitioner's main contention was that the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the rules'), were promulgated on 21st July, 1975. Sub-rule (a) of Rule 6 of the Rules 1975 is reproduced as under. "(a) by direct recruitment in accordance with part IV of the Rules: Provided that twelve and half per cent of the posts of Inspector Grade II to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the ministerial staff of the Commercial Taxes Department holding a post in the cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the rules. The reservation shall be carried forwarded only to the next succeeding year : Provided that the two posts of Commercial Taxes Inspector Grade II shall be reserved for being filled in by promotion from amongst Jamadars of the Commercial Taxes Department subject to their fulfilling qualification equivalent to Higher Secondary examination and if they have put in not less than 10 years service as Jamadar on the first day of April in which year selection is made and that there shall be no further promotion till this reserve quota is filled up". 3. The main controversy in this writ petition is that the petitioner availed of three chances before Rajasthan Public Service Commission as stipulated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1962') which reads as under: "Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 The number of chances which a candidate, except in case of candidate belonging to the 'Schedule Caste' or 'Schedule Tribe', appearing at any of these examinations can avail of, shall be restricted to "three", excluding the chances he has already availed of at examination or selection held before the promulgation of these Rules for direct recruitment to posts specified in schedule I & schedule II, as the case may be" 4. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1962 further says as under:- Sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 "The decision of the commission as to the eligiblity or otherwise of a candidate for admission to any of these examinations shall be final and no candidate shall be admitted to the examination unless he holds a certificate of admission from the commission. Before granting such a certificate, the commission shall satisfy themselves in each case that the application has been made strictly in accordance with the provisions of these Rules and instructions issued by the commission in this behalf". 5. It is disputed that the petitioner has availed of three chances in the capacity of General Candidate in the year 1985, 1987 & 1988 for Rajasthan Administrative Services and Rajasthan Tehsildar Services. It is specifically contended in the writ petition that the petitioner earlier did not apply as a 'Departmental Candidate' against the quota of Ministerial Staff provided under sub-rule (a) of Rule 6 of the Rules 1975. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. P.V. Calla, has submitted that in view of the provisions of Rules 1962 and Rules 1975, the petitioner after availing three chances in the capacity of General Candidate was eligible to avail three chances more as a 'Departmantl Candidate', in view of sub-rule (a) of Rule 6 of the Rules 1975. Thus, the petitioner was eligible to appear in the Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services i.e. Inspector Grade-II examination only in the capacity of Non-Gazetted employee, as he could avail three more chances as Non-Gazetted employee excluding three chances which the petitioner had already availed as General Candidate. 7. Mr. P.V. Calla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the petitioner as Non-Gazetted employee filled his application form and submitted in time before the R.P.S.C. At the time of submitting his form details about his present posting as Lower Division Clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department was also given. The petitioner being a 'Departmental Candidate', appeared in the Competitive Examination held in the year 1989 with his Roll. No. 36983. As per sub-rule (a) of Rule 6 of the Rules 1975, the petitioner was declared successful in the Part-I Examination. The petitioner being a 'Departmental Candidate', appeared in the Competitive Examination held in the year 1989 with his Roll. No. 36983. As per sub-rule (a) of Rule 6 of the Rules 1975, the petitioner was declared successful in the Part-I Examination. The result of the Part-I Examination was also communicated to the petitioner by the respondent, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, and the petitioner was asked to deposit the fee for the Part-II Examination vide letters Ex.5 & Ex.6. The petitioner was also informed the revised position of the post of Rajasthan Commercial Taxes in Subordinate Services. The break-up of 16 posts which were advertised by the R.P.S.C. were also shown as per the relevant provision as laid down under sub-rule (a) of Rule 6 of the Rules 1975. One post for the Ministerial Staff belonging to the department concerned was shown reserved. The petitioner has also applied for the post of Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services against one post, which was reserved for 'Departmental Candidate'. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the Part-II Examination and the petitioner appeared and declared successful, and mark-sheet was also supplied by the R.P.S.C., but in the mark-sheet, it was indicated that the petitioner is not qualified for interview, and further vide communication dated 21.9.1990 the petitioner was informed that he is not eligible for subordinate Service, in the capacity of 'Departmental Candidate' as he has already availed of three chances in the years 1985-86, 1987 and 1987-88. On 5.4.1990, the petitioner has submitted a representation followed by reminder dated 28.5.1990. 8. The petitioner's main grievance is that so far as the year 1989, his chance as an 'open market candidate' has been wrongly considered, whereas, in fact the petitioner should have been considered as a 'Departmental Candidate', against the posts reserved for the ministerial staff. 9. Mr. P.V. Calla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has first time applied as a 'Departmental Candidate', being a member of Ministerial Staff of Commercial Taxes Department and was allowed to appear in the examination conducted by the R.P.S.C. and also secured more than 45% marks in the Part-II Examination. 9. Mr. P.V. Calla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has first time applied as a 'Departmental Candidate', being a member of Ministerial Staff of Commercial Taxes Department and was allowed to appear in the examination conducted by the R.P.S.C. and also secured more than 45% marks in the Part-II Examination. Thus the petitioner according to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Rules 1962 was eligible for interview and further challenged the order dated 21.9.1990 issued by the R.P.S.C., without mentioning the provisions of the Rules 1962 and Rules 1975, the petitioner was wrongly not interviewed on the pretext that he has already availed three chances according to the provisions of Rules 1962 and Rules 1975 as General Candidate. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mr. P.V. Calla, has contended that the petitioner is entitled for three more chances being a 'Departmental Candidate', therefore, the action of the respondent RPSC in view of the Rules of 1975 is discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, whereas, the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (a) of Rule 6 of the Rules 1975 was entitled for consideration to be appointed on the post of Rajasthan Commercial Taxes i.e. Inspector Grade-II against the reserve post, to be filled from amongst the minsterial staff of the Commercial Taxes Department. 11. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 (R.P.S.C.). It is submitted by Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 that in view of the provisions of Rules for general candidates and departmental candidates, only three chances are available, which a candidate may avail either as a general candidate or as departmental candidate. The rule does not contemplate three chances independently as a general candidate or as departmental candidate. 12. In reply to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner Mr. P.V. Calla, it is contended by Mr. The rule does not contemplate three chances independently as a general candidate or as departmental candidate. 12. In reply to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner Mr. P.V. Calla, it is contended by Mr. S.N. Kumawat learned counsel for the respondents that if the petitioner was not eligible to appear as Non-Gazetted employee why he was allowed to appear in the examination Part-I & II, it has been submitted that the petitioner has applied as Non-Gazetted employee against the reserve quota, but it was found after the Part-II examination that the petitioner is not qualified for interview as he did not secure the minimum marks fixed by the RPSC. As such the mark-sheet was issued with a note that the petitioner is not qualified for interview. 13. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15th Sept. 1990 with the request that he may be considered as departmental candidate. The request of the petitioner was rejected by RPSC on 28th Sept. 1990, on the ground that the petitioner has already availed three chances as a general candidate and no independent three chances were available to the petitioner being a departmental candidate for the Subordinate Service. 14. It was not disputed by the learned counsel Mr. S.N. Kumawat appearing for the RPSC that after the Second phase of examination, some posts were added and the candidates were informed to exercise their option. However, the petitioner was not eligible to appear against the reserved seats for departmental candidate in the Subordinate Services as the petitioner has already availed three chances. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner appeared in the Part-I & II examination at his own risk. He has got no legal right to be called for interview because of the reason that the application forms are to be scrutinised only after the Part-II examination and before the interview. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly not allowed for interview. However, the result of the Part-II examination was declared on 9th August, 1990 and was published on 10th August, 1990, but it was subject to the scrutiny of the candidature of the candidates and was provisional. Since, the petitioner having no chance at his credit, and has already availed three chances, as such his candidature was rejected, and he was not called for the interview. 15. The learned counsel Mr. Since, the petitioner having no chance at his credit, and has already availed three chances, as such his candidature was rejected, and he was not called for the interview. 15. The learned counsel Mr. S.N. Kumwat, appearing on behalf of RPSC has further contended that the respondent (RPSC) has interpreted the rules and has applied the rules correctly. The petitioner is not eligible to appear as a departmental candidate, since, he has already availed three chances as an open market candidate. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the rules mentioned above and also pleading as well as case law cited before me. 17. Mr. P.V. Calla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed in Ram Babu Soni v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Another (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2624/1987 dated 28th Feb. 1989) . I have carefully gone through the judgment cited before me. The case which was referred by Mr. P.V. Calla, relates to examination conducted by RPSC in the year 1985 for direct recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations. The petitioner in that case appeared in the year 1980 for Rajasthan Tehsildar Services only ; in the year 1982 he appeared in the Combined Competitive Examination for RAS & RTS and in the year 1983, he appeared in the Combined Competitive Examination for both State and Subordinate Services. Thereafter, he appeared in the Combined Competitive Examination held in the year 1985 and his case was not considered as he had alreday availed three chances for aforementioned Services in the year 1980, 1982 & 1983. Hon'ble Division Bench has observed that Rules of 1962 were amended on 10th August, 1982 and the existing Rule 5, which relates to the Subordinate Services, has been deleted. Now, as per the amended rule there is only one combined competitive examination for both the State and Subordinate Services. As such, the petitioner is entitled to avail of three chances for the examination for both the services and in the year 1985, it was his third chance and, thus, he was eligible to be considered for Subordinate Services also. After the amendment dated 10th August, 1982, Rule 4 (1), has been substituted by new Rule 4(1)-Rule 5 stands deleted. Rule 8 has also been substituted by new Rule 8. After the amendment dated 10th August, 1982, Rule 4 (1), has been substituted by new Rule 4(1)-Rule 5 stands deleted. Rule 8 has also been substituted by new Rule 8. In Rule 9 for the existing words "each such notice" occurring in sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, the words "such notice" stand substituted. Rule 10 has also been amended. Hon'ble Division Bench has held that Rule 4 new provides for Combined Competitive Examination for both State and Subordinate Services, which prior to amendment were dealt under Rule 4 and Rule 5 separately. Sub-rule (2) (iv), which was a part of Rule 4, originally provided for three chances for State Services when it was dealing with Combined Competitive Examination for State Services only, but after amendment of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, it governs Combined Competitive Examination for State and Subordinate Services. It is, thus, clear that under amended Rule 4, a candidate appearing at the examination for both the Services is entitled to avail of three chances, as the expression "three chances under this Rule" occurring in sub-rule (2) (iv) as stands amended, refers to Combined Competitive Examination for State and Subordinate Services. 18. Hon'ble Division Bench has further observed that while amending the Rules of 1962, the rule making authority did not provide any provision that while considering the number of attempts, the previous attempts at the different examination for the State and Subordiante Services shall be counted for the Combined Competitive Examination for State Subordinate Services or not and further observed that the entire controversy arose becuase the Rule 11(1) was not suitably amended in view of the amendments made in Rules 4, 8 & 10, though in not doing so, it has not affected the merits of this case at all. The Division Bench has allowed the writ petition. The ratio of the judgment passed by Division Bench is not applicable to the instant case, because of the reason that Mr. Ram Babu Soni admittedly availed the chances prior to amendment, which was taken place on 10th August, 1982, whereas, in the instant case admittedly the petitioner appeared for examination in the year 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1990 after the amendment. 19. I have perused the relevant rules. Ram Babu Soni admittedly availed the chances prior to amendment, which was taken place on 10th August, 1982, whereas, in the instant case admittedly the petitioner appeared for examination in the year 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1990 after the amendment. 19. I have perused the relevant rules. The petitioner has already availed three chances as a general candidate and independently three chances were available to the departmental candidate for Subordinate Services, therefore, he was not rightly allowed for interview. To this effect the RPSC has rightly communicated the decision to the petitioner vide Ex.10 dated 21.9.1990. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the judgment passed by Division Bench in Ram Babu's case (supra) is distinguishable and also not applicable to the instant case. 20. In view of the judgment, cited before me and after hearing arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and after hearing the rival contentions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and in view of the provisions of law as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the present writ petition does not survive and same deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. *******