1. The Notification dated February 20, 2002, inviting applications to compete for Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Competitive Examination, was responded by the respondent-writ petitioner. He succeeded in the preliminary examination and sat in the main examination. Thereafter, two select lists were issued where the name of the respondent-writ petitioner did not figure. On June 14, 2004, the merit list of the candidates, who had appeared in the main examination, was published. From there, the respondent-writ petitioner found that he had secured 64th position in the list after having had secured 1086 marks in aggregate. He also ascertained that the cut off mark for the candidates to appear in the interview was fixed at 988. The respondent-writ petitioner, thus, approached the appellant-Commission when he was told that, inasmuch as he has failed in General English Paper I, he has not qualified and, accordingly, he could not be called for interview. The respondent-writ petitioner, thus, filed a writ petition, which has been allowed by the judgment and order under appeal. While allowing the writ petition, a learnend Single Judge of this Court took notice of Appendix 1B of the applicable Rules and found that the same provided that Paper I on English will be of qualifying nature only and that the marks obtained in that paper shall not count for ranking. 2. It was urged by the appellant that since Paper I on English was a qualifying paper and since the respondent-writ petitioner has not qualified in that paper, he has not qualified the main written examination and, as such, he could not be interviewed. On behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner, it was urged that the proviso applicable to the case contained in the Rules makes it clear that the candidate, who has failed in more than one subject, will not be eligible to be called for interview and, accordingly, even if the respondent-writ petitioner has not qualified in Paper I on English, it being not the contention of the appellant that he has failed in any other paper, the respondent-writ petitioner could not be denied his right to be interviewed, having had come within the zone of consideration. 3. 3. The learned Judge felt that if the provisions are harmoniously interpreted, non qualifying in Paper I on English should not come in the way of a candidate to be called for interview and the same is also evident from the subject proviso. 4. In the present appeal, the appellant is contending that the Rules governing the subject examination makes it clear that Paper I on English is the `bench mark of qualifying in the main written examination and if a candidate has not qualified in the said examination he has not qualified in the main written examination. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that marks obtained in Paper I on English have been directed not to be counted for ranking. He submitted that this was done in order not to permit persons proficient in English to score a march over persons who are otherwise meritorious but may not be similarly proficient in English. He submitted that as the marks in this paper are not counted for ranking, in the backdrop of the subject proviso, which makes a candidate eligible to be called for interview even if he has failed in one paper, the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal is not interferable. 5. We think that the basic mistake was committed while considering Appendix 1B to the Rules and the proviso referred to in the judgment, independentally. We think that, while interpreting the true purport of the provisions of the law governing the subject, one must jointly read clauses (iii) and (iv) of Rule 8 of the applicable Rules and Appendix 1B thereto. They are set out hereunder: "(iii) The Main Examination will consist of a written examination and an interview test. The written examination will consist of papers of conventional essay type (out of which one paper will be of qualifying nature only) in the subjects set out in Appendix-IA and the detailed syllabus in Appendix-IB. (iv) Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in written part of the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in any or all the papers at their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview. The interview test is intended to judge the mental calibre of a candidate. (iv) Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in written part of the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in any or all the papers at their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview. The interview test is intended to judge the mental calibre of a candidate. In broad terms, this is really an assessment of not only his intellectual qualities but also social traits and his interest in current affairs. Some of the qualities to be judged are mental alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment, variety and depth of interest, ability for social cohesion and leadership, intellectual and moral integrity. Provided that a candidate who fails to secure such minimum number of marks as are fixed by the Commission in their discretion in more than one subject shall not be eligible to be called for interview. Appendix I B. Main Examination The written examination shall consist of the following papers:- Paper I General English 300 marks Paper II Essay in English 150 marks Paper III & IV General Studies 300 marks (for each paper) Paper V, VI Any two subjects to be -do- Selected from the list of the optional Subjects indicated below. Note:- (i) Paper I on English will be of matriculation standard and will be of qualifying nature only. The marks obtained in this paper shall not count for ranking. (ii) Interview test will carry 240 marks." 6. A look at the provisions quoted above would make it clear that the proviso which was noticed by the learned Single Judge is appended to Rule 8(iv) and does not control Rule 8(iii). Rule 8(iii) is independent of Rule 8(iv) and the proviso contained therin. In Rule 8(iv) a discretion has been given to the Commission to fix a minimum qualifying marks. In that backdrop, it has been provided in the proviso that if a person fails to secure minimum number of marks in more than one subject he shall not be debarred from being called for interview. In Rule 8(iii) there is no discretion left with the Commission for fixing any minimum qualifying marks. It is a must on its part, as appears from the language used read with the provisions contained in the Appendix, i. e., it requires the Commission to earmark one paper to be denoted as a qualifying paper. In Rule 8(iii) there is no discretion left with the Commission for fixing any minimum qualifying marks. It is a must on its part, as appears from the language used read with the provisions contained in the Appendix, i. e., it requires the Commission to earmark one paper to be denoted as a qualifying paper. This itself includes an obligation on the part of the Commission to fix the qualifying marks. The person who has qualified after securing such qualifying marks in that earmarked paper in terms of Rule 8(iii) is entitled to be declared to have qualified in the main examination. In the circumstances, reading the provisions contained in Rule 8(iii) Appendix IB to the Rules and Rule 8(iv), it cannot be construed that a failure in that qualifying paper alone, in view of the proviso to Rule 8(iv), will not stand in the way of the candidate to be called for interview. Looking from a different angle, the words used "qualifying nature" both in Rule 8(iii) and Appendix IB would become otiose in view of the interpretation given by the learned Judge in the judgment and order under appeal. 7. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and dismiss the writ petition.