JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was convicted by the Commanding Officer, 502 Army Service Corp-Battalion vide judgment dated 31.8.1998 for offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. No appeal has been filed by the petitioner against said conviction and sentence hence conviction and sentence has attained finality. 2. The petitioner by the time 20.12.2007 completed his sentence of 12 years 8 months and 9 days including remission then the petitioner submitted an application for going to the open air camp which is permissible under the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (here referred to as the Act of 1972), Petitioner's application was dismissed vide order dated 29.8.2001 by the committee holding that the petitioner is not eligible for sending him to the open air camp. It is also stated in the order dated 29.8.2007 that since large number of applications are being received from the prisoners who are riot prisoners falling under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972, therefore, the petitioner who is convicted by the Court martial cannot be accommodated in open air camp. 3. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that Rule 3 of Rules of 1972 has been misinterpreted by the authorities so as to mean that any person convicted by the Court martial cannot get the benefit of going to open air camp inspite of the fact that Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 only provides that such prisoner shall "ordinarily" be not eligible for being sent to open air camp. It is not a rule denying benefit totally to convicts falling in Rules 3 of the Rules of 1972. It is submitted that if any application of any convict irrespective of his undergone sentence will be given preference above convict of categories as prescribed under Rule 3 than none of convict of category of Rule 3 will get opportunity of going to open jail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that committee was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim in view of the fact that large number of applications for going in open air camp are being received form the convicts who are not falling under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 and therefore, petitioner cannot be accommodated. It is also submitted that facility of open-air camp cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5. It is also submitted that facility of open-air camp cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. We have perused the Rules of 1972 also. 6. It appears from the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp 1972 that above rules have been enacted for sending convicts to open air camp with a view to encourage good conduct and satisfactory performance of work and discipline among the convict and to provide these convicts release opportunity to realise social adjustment and economic self dependness. To judge the suitability of the conducts, an open-air camp advisory committee is required to be constituted by the Government to evaluate the working of open-air camp and to take a decision for transferring the eligible persons to open air camps. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1972 provides that a person shall be eligible to open air camp if he does not fall within any of the category specified in Rule 3 and he has been regularly performing his duties in jail and he has served ⅓ of his substantive sentence including remission. 7. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1972 starts with following words "some class of prisoners shall ordinarily be not eligible for being sent to open air camp," Sub-clause A of Rule is relevant rule under which the petitioner's case falls as he has been convicted by the Court martial. 8. Rule 3 provides that prisoners falling in clauses (a) to (m) under Rule 3 shall "ordinarily" be not eligible for being sent to open camp. The word "ordinarily" cannot be interpreted to mean that the prisoners falling in the categories (a) to (m) under Rule 3 shall not be eligible for sending to open air Camp as it would destroy the purpose for enacting Rule 3 itself. Rule 3 has been framed in the language as such in spite of Rule 4 which says that "a prisoner shall be eligible for admission to open air camp if he does not fall within any of the category specified in Rule 3" Therefore, harmoneous construction of Rules 3 and 4 can be that a convict of category referred into Rule 3 shall ordinarily be not eligible for being sent to open air camp but he could be considered and can be sent to open air camp. Rejection of claim of candidates falling in category under Rule 3 on the ground that they are not eligible for sending to open air camp is contrary to rule 3 of Rules of 1972. 9. Even if large number of applications are received from the prisoners who are not falling in clauses (a) to (m) of Rule 3 of Rules of 1972 even then, if other requirements are satisfied by the prisoner then prisoner falling in the rule 3 of the Rules 1972 can have some percentage of accommodation in open air camp but for that decision is required to be taken by the Committee. 10. The order of denial to petitioner for open air camp on the ground of his eligibility, therefore, is set aside and it is held that the petitioner is eligible for consideration for sending him to open air camp and for that purpose the competent authority may take a decision within the 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the petitioner through Jail authorities.Petition allowed. *******