JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. Present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order passed by the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2282/1999 dated 5th May 2000, whereby the Tribunal has held that the grant of five bonus marks awarded to the candidates possessing NCC 'C' and/or LL.B. degree on each count in the competitive examination was not provided by the Rules, hence, the Respondent No. 1 was subjected to great prejudice and Tribunal has held that the Respondent No. 1 should be deemed to have been selected and he should be given appointment within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal and further direction was issued to remove the anomalies existing in the Rules i.e. the M. P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The case set up by Respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal was that an advertisement was issued on 5th May, 1997 about the recruitment of Subedar/Platoon Commander/Sub-Inspector 47 vacancies were proposed to be filled. The terms and conditions were mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure R-1). The scheme of examination was given in condition No. 7 of the advertisement. On clearing physical parameters, written examination shall be conducted and five times of the candidates as compared to vacancies shall be called to the second stage which shall consist of physical proficiency examination and an interview. Details of written examination, physical test and interview were also mentioned. In the advertisement a note was appended to Paragraph No. 7 which made it clear that holder of NCC 'C' certificate examination and LL.B. degree, shall be awarded on each count five bonus marks. Paragraph No. 8 of the advertisement provided that the final selection shall be made by addition of all marks obtained in the written, physical test and interview and after character verification, a candidate shall be appointed. Written test consists of two papers having 100 marks each. 100 marks were prescribed for the physical test and interview carried 50 marks. Thus, the total maximum marks for the candidate for non-technical post were 350. The Respondent No. 1 secured 220 marks, five other candidates also secured same marks. Considering the number of vacancy, only three candidates, out of these five, could be selected. 100 marks were prescribed for the physical test and interview carried 50 marks. Thus, the total maximum marks for the candidate for non-technical post were 350. The Respondent No. 1 secured 220 marks, five other candidates also secured same marks. Considering the number of vacancy, only three candidates, out of these five, could be selected. The State gave preference to three carrying similar marks on the basis that the marks in the first theory paper would determine the inter se merit among these five persons. If the marks in the first paper are the same, then the marks in the second paper shall be considered. If the marks in both the papers are the same, then the elder person shall rank higher. Respondent No. 1 was more in age than the candidates selected, as such he should have been selected. Marks obtained in theory could not be given preference. His further case was that the Respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11 secured respectively 223, 221 and 221 marks. Each of them have been given 5 bonus marks, to which they were not entitled. Hence, their appointments be quashed. It was also the case set up that the Respondents Nos. 7 and 8 were wrongly selected as Ex-servicemen. It was contended by State of Madhya Pradesh and others, Petitioners in the instant case, that the bonus marks could be given as per Schedule III to the Rules. The marks obtained by the Petitioner in the theory papers were less than the other candidates. Hence, the Respondent No. 1 cannot complain of any violation of the rules, neither the action is arbitrary nor illegal in any manner. The Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the application filed by the Respondent No. 1. It has been held that the grant of bonus marks to Anil Kumar Singh, Hariom Khare and Shailendra Singh Kushwaha was impermissible and bad in law. Tribunal also found that though Schedule III to the Rules provides for grant of five bonus marks each to the holder of NCC 'C' certificate and holder of LL.B. degree, the same could not be added in the marks obtained in the competitive examination. Tribunal also found that though Schedule III to the Rules provides for grant of five bonus marks each to the holder of NCC 'C' certificate and holder of LL.B. degree, the same could not be added in the marks obtained in the competitive examination. Tribunal opined that Schedule III has been framed with reference to Rule 8 which provides for the eligibility and it has been held that mention of bonus marks in Schedule III is anomalous and irrelevant hence superfluous since there is no system of giving the marks to determine the eligibility of candidates. The Tribunal has further held that the intention seems to be to give bonus marks in the competitive examination. The provision is mis-placed and such a provision should have been inserted in Rule 6(8). The advertisement is contrary to the Rules. The Tribunal has further held that the advertisement provided that five bonus marks each for NCC 'C' certificate and LL.B. degree shall be in the competitive examination. Since there is no such provision in the Rules, which are statutory, hence, the advertisement could not be acted upon. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that inclusion of the bonus marks has the effect of raising maximum marks to 360 whereas the maximum marks were 350. Thus the action of award of bonus marks was against the provision of Rules. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that candidates Anil Kumar Singh, Hariom Khare and Shailendra Singh Kushwaha had obtained lesser marks than the Respondent No. 1, but, they were given five bonus marks, which were not permissible to be given. However, the Tribunal did not quash appointments of persons selected by grant of bonus marks. The Tribunal has further relied on Rule 13 to conclude that the bonus marks could not be added in the marks while preparing the final merit list. Learned Counsel for the State Shri Vivekanand Awasthy submits that the Tribunal has erred in not interpreting the Rules correctly Schedule III which is very much the part of the Rules has been rendered otiose. The Tribunal has failed to follow salutary Rule to give efficacy to the provision of statute and has failed to give meaningful and purposive interpretation. The reasonings employed are contradictory and totally devoid of substance. The Tribunal has failed to follow salutary Rule to give efficacy to the provision of statute and has failed to give meaningful and purposive interpretation. The reasonings employed are contradictory and totally devoid of substance. He submits that out of persons carrying the same marks 220 each the appointments on the basis of higher marks in theory is perfectly justified. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Shri S. P. Sharma has vehemently urged that Rule 8 of the Rules deals with the eligibility conditions. Hence, the five bonus marks each for NCC 'C' certificate and for LL.B. degree holder could be given only for the purpose of adjudging the eligibility and could not be added in adjudging final merit in competitive stage which consists of written examination, physical test and interview. He further submits that since the Respondent No. 1 had obtained similar marks as were obtained by other candidates, he should have been given priority being more in age. His further submission is that the overall marks should have been taken into consideration, not that of theory only. He relies on a decision of this Court in Smt. Pratibha Tripathi v. State of M.P. and others, L.P.A. No. 61 of 1997 decided on 3-7-1997. The various submissions raised are to be considered in the backdrop of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and the Rules called the M.P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997 which came into force w.e.f. 16th May, 1997 on their publication in the M. P. Gazette as per Rule l(ii) of the Rules. The advertisement in question was published on 15-5-1997. It is clear from the advertisement that for adjudging the merit, five bonus marks each for NCC 'C' certificate and for LL.B. degree holder shall be awarded. It is not in dispute that for adjudging the eligibility, no examination is provided neither it was conducted nor any merit list of the eligible candidates is prepared for allowing them to appear in the written test. Those who possess the requisite educational qualification and physical measurement are allowed to appear in the written examination. The merit list is prepared and five times number of candidates as compared to vacancies are invited for physical proficiency test and interview. Rule 8 of the Rules prescribes conditions for eligibility of the candidates for direct recruitment. It prescribes the conditions namely; age, physical qualification and educational qualification. The merit list is prepared and five times number of candidates as compared to vacancies are invited for physical proficiency test and interview. Rule 8 of the Rules prescribes conditions for eligibility of the candidates for direct recruitment. It prescribes the conditions namely; age, physical qualification and educational qualification. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 reads as under: (3) Educational Qualification. - A Candidate must possess the educational qualification prescribed for the service as shown in the Schedule III provided that - (a) In exceptional cases the Committee may on recommendation of the appointing authority treat as qualified any candidate who though not possessing any qualifications prescribed in this clause, has passed examinations conducted by other institutions by such a standard which in the opinion of the Committee justifies the consideration of the candidate as eligible for examination/selection. (b) Candidates who are otherwise qualified but have taken degree from foreign universities, being universities not specifically recognized by Government may also be considered for appearing in the examination/selection at the discretion of the Committee. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 has a reference to Schedule III. Schedule III prescribes names of posts; Subedar, Sub-Inspector, Sub-Inspector Radio, Sub-Inspector Finger Prints, Sub-Inspector Questioned Documents, Lady Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commander. In column (6), the qualifications are prescribed. The "note" appended to the Schedule provides that: Holder of NCC 'C' certificate and candidates with LL.B. degree shall be given bonus 5 marks for each. Rule 6 of the Rules provides the method of recruitment. The Rule prescribes that the recruitment to the service after the commencement of these rules shall be made by the following methods, namely:- (a) By direct recruitment by selection, through competitive examination. (b) By promotion of such members of service, as are specified in Column 2 of Schedule IV. (c) By transfer of persons who hold in a substantive capacity such posts in such services as may be specified in this behalf. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 6 of the Rules prescribes the procedure of selection by competitive examination to be conducted for selection by direct recruitment which we quote: 6(8) The procedure of selection by competitive examination under Clause (a) of Sub-rule (1) shall be as follows: (i) Measurement of physical standard - The physical test of the candidate shall be conducted according to the minimum qualification as specified in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8. Note. Note. - In case of any dispute with regard to physical measurement, the decision of the Chief Medical Officer of the District shall be final. (ii) Written examination. - (a) the duration of written examination, will be two hours, and to test the proficiency in Hindi and English shall be of hundred marks i.e. Hindi 70 marks, English 30 marks. (b) General Knowledge examination shall be of 100 marks and the duration of which will be 2 hours. (c) Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry examination shall be of 100 marks and the duration of which will be 2 hours. This examination shall be compulsory only for such candidates who have applied for recruitment for the post of Sub-Inspector (Radio) (Finger Print) (QD) as specified in Schedule-Ill. Note. - Written examination under Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (ii) is compulsory for all candidates. By adding the marks obtained in the examination of the first stage a separate merit list one for Subedar, Sub-Inspector, Platoon Commander and another for Sub-Inspector (Technical) shall be prepared in which the candidates numbering five times the number of vacant posts advertised shall be called for examination of second stage. Last candidate, on whom five-times-number is completed and all those candidates who obtained marks more than or equal to this candidate shall be admitted to the second stage irrespective of the number exceeding the stipulated five times number. (iii) Physical Proficiency. - This test is compulsory for all candidates. This test shall be of 100 marks and shall include following items - (a) Long Jump 20 marks (b) High Jump 20 marks (c) Shot Put 20 marks (d) 100 meter race 20 marks (e) 1500 meter race 20 marks Details of statement of marks to be awarded in each event are specified in Schedule V. (iv) Interview. - Personal Interview shall be of 50 marks. Another rule which has been pressed into service is Rule 13 which provides thus: 13. Appointment of the Service from the select list. - Final merit list for direct recruitment shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in written examination, physical proficiency test and interview. - Personal Interview shall be of 50 marks. Another rule which has been pressed into service is Rule 13 which provides thus: 13. Appointment of the Service from the select list. - Final merit list for direct recruitment shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in written examination, physical proficiency test and interview. Appointment shall be made in order of seniority on the basis of preference given by candidate and availability of posts provided that only those candidates will be considered for the post of Platoon Commander/Subedar who obtain a minimum of 60% marks in the physical proficiency test. The select list issued by the Appointing Authority shall remain valid for a period of one year from the date of its issue. In our considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in law in not holding that the bonus marks could not added to marks obtained in competitive examination. A plain reading of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 makes it clear that a candidate must possess the educational qualification prescribed for the service as shown in the Schedule III. While prescribing the educational qualification considering the nature of the duty to be performed by the candidates aspiring for the post mentioned in Schedule III has thought it appropriate in its wisdom that holder of NCC 'C' certificate and LL.B. degree shall be awarded five bonus marks for each of such qualification. In our opinion, Tribunal has erred in law in holding that under this Rule 8(3) no such provisions ought to have been added. Grant of the bonus marks is rightly prescribed in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 in order to give the candidates a clear picture that which of the qualification is considered better qualification and a person has to be given boost of bonus marks on possessing such qualification while adjudging merit. For adjudging eligibility no competitive examination is conducted nor any merit list of the candidates found possessing physical measurement is prepared to appear for written test, thus, the addition of these five bonus marks can only be and is for the purpose of adjudging the ultimate merit for the candidates and for no other purpose. Thus, these bonus marks are obviously to be added to the marks obtained by a candidate in written examination and physical proficiency test and interview as prescribed under Sub-rule (8) of Rule 6. Thus, these bonus marks are obviously to be added to the marks obtained by a candidate in written examination and physical proficiency test and interview as prescribed under Sub-rule (8) of Rule 6. Rule 13 has to be read harmoniously with Rule 8, so also Rule 6. It is settled law that one rule cannot be interpreted in isolation so as to defeat the mandate of the other rules or the provision. It is the bounden duty of the Court to give effect to each and every word of statute and to its intent and further to interpret the rules harmoniously and any interpretation which would create repugnancy has to be avoided. Rule 13 so interpreted has to be understood and read in the manner that while assessing overall merit five bonus marks each are to be added and computed for the candidates possessing NCC 'C' certificate and/or LL.B. degree. It is also settled principle that a provision cannot be rendered otiose when the Schedule III appended to the Rules clearly provides among eligible candidates, five bonus marks each shall be given to holder of NCC 'C' certificate and LL.B. degree. Intent is writ large. Tribunal itself has found that intention appears to be that the marks should be added in the competitive examination, but, it failed to give effect to the intent of statutory provision simply on the ground that the Schedule III has been framed in reference to Rule 8 which prescribes eligibility criteria. The reasoning employed by the Tribunal is totally impermissible and cannot be allowed to sustain. The Tribunal has also erred in holding that the advertisement runs contrary to the Rules inasmuch as the advertisement says five bonus marks each for holder of NCC 'C' certificate and LL.B. Degree shall be given in the competitive examination. We find no violation of the Rules in the advertisement issued, even otherwise the advertisement was issued a day earlier to the enforcement of the Rules. Respondent No. 1 has failed to make out a case of any repugnancy of advertisement with the Rules, even though Rules have come into force a day subsequent to the advertisement and validity of the advertisement has to be judged on its own, even if the Rules are applied as appointments have been made subsequent to the advertisement. Respondent No. 1 has failed to make out a case of any repugnancy of advertisement with the Rules, even though Rules have come into force a day subsequent to the advertisement and validity of the advertisement has to be judged on its own, even if the Rules are applied as appointments have been made subsequent to the advertisement. We find no violation of any of the provisions of the Rules, rather the Rules provide for addition/award of such marks. Whatever that may be we have examined the case from both angles on the considerations of the advertisement as well as the Rules, and in our considered opinion, the five bonus marks each for possessor of NCC 'C' certificate and or LL.B. degree holder are to be added to make the ultimate merit marks secured by a candidate. The Tribunal has erred in holding that addition of bonus marks has effect of enhancing total aggregate marks from 350 to 360. The bonus marks are to be added to make final merit, it cannot be said that for awardees of such bonus marks total aggregate marks have been enhanced to 360. There is no enhancement of the total marks, only enhancement is to the marks obtained by a candidate in the merit examination which consisted of various stages. The Tribunal has erred in holding that there is no such provision in the rules for grant of bonus marks. Schedule III is very much part of the Rules and same has to be given effect to. The Tribunal has gone stray to find difference in the Rules and advertisement regarding award of the bonus marks whereas none exist. The Apex Court in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab and Another, , held that certificate of registration cannot be read in isolation, but, sections, rule and form are to operate together. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Jullundur Vs. Ajanta Electricals, Punjab, it has been held that form prescribed can be used to provide method and interpretation of section and rule under which it has been prescribed. We are also of the view that the Respondent No. 1 cannot challenge condition of advertisement prescribing that the bonus marks shall be added while preparing the merit list, as he has undertaken the examination and faced the process of selection without any objection. We are also of the view that the Respondent No. 1 cannot challenge condition of advertisement prescribing that the bonus marks shall be added while preparing the merit list, as he has undertaken the examination and faced the process of selection without any objection. After having participated and failed, it is not open to him to contend that such a condition of advertisement was bad in law. Faced with the situation, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has tried to catch last straw like a drowning fish while contending that since the Respondent No. 1 obtained 220 marks, his age was more than the other three selected candidates having the equal marks, he ought to have been given priority in the matter of appointment. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Pratibha Tripathi v. State of M. P. (supra). The State of M. P. and others/Petitioners have adopted the principle that if the candidates secure the similar marks in written test, physical proficiency and interview, priority be given to candidates having more marks in theory. The Respondent No. 1, applicant before the Tribunal admittedly secured lesser marks in theory than the other three candidates namely; Anil Kumar Singh, Hariom Khare and Shailendra Singh Kushwaha who were appointed. It is only where the marks in written examination are the same, the person with more age was to be given preference. The criteria which has been adopted by the Respondents is fully in consonance with the decision of this Court in the case of Pratibha Tripathi v. State of M.P. where in this Court has expressed the opinion as under ; However, after considering the rival submission made by the parties, we are of the opinion that the better course would be that in case the candidates secure equal marks in total aggregate, in that case, the marks obtained by them in the Written Tests should be taken into consideration for arranging the select list on merits and in case both the candidates secure the same marks in the Written Tests also, then the age factor should be taken into consideration. We are not laying down any criteria. But after going through various decisions followed by the other Public Service Commissions, we are of the opinion that it will be more rational to adopt the merit as criteria. We are not laying down any criteria. But after going through various decisions followed by the other Public Service Commissions, we are of the opinion that it will be more rational to adopt the merit as criteria. Therefore, we leave the matter for consideration of the Public Service Commission. We are of the opinion that it would be more rational if the Commission thinks it proper in the light of the observations made, that the criteria of marks obtained by candidates, when they secure equal marks in aggregate, their respective merits should be decided on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the Written Test and in case they secure similar marks in the Written Test, then the age factor should be taken into consideration. Age factor should be the last criteria rather than the first one. We find the criteria adopted by the Respondent is not arbitrary or impermissible one. Even otherwise it is open for the Public Service Commission to fix its own criteria which stands to reason and as such no interference is called for by the Court in such matters. The submission of learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 that in case of tie marks, the marks obtained in written examination should not have been given priority in appointment and a candidate with more age should have been given priority, is not acceptable as it is not for the Court to fix the criteria since the criteria which has been fixed is based on sound principle. The same does not call for any interference. Upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the petition is meritorious, it is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The Original Application filed by the Respondent No. 1 is dismissed. Costs on parties. Final Result : Allowed