1. The grouse of the petitioner is that he being a handicapped person was entitled to be treated preferentially but has been ignored from being selected as Patwari. 2. Pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 30.4.1992, J&K Service Selection Board (hereinafter for short referred to as SSB), invited applications for selection of candidates to undergo Patwar training course in Revenue Training Institute, Jammu/Srinagar. Process of selection was not initiated till 1995 when SSB issued one more Advertisement Notice in supersession to earlier Advertisement Notice of 1992 where-under again applications were invited for selection of candidates to undergo Patwar training in Revenue Training Institute, Jammu/Srinagar. In terms of the said Advertisement Notice vis-a-vis reservation it was noted that "selection will be made in terms of SRO 126 of 1994 dated 28.6.1994". Petitioner having participated could not get selected which prompted him as well as one Anoop Singh to file a petition bearing SWP No.2002/1998, wherein it was contended that the private respondents under RBA category have been illegally selected as the Advertisement Notice did not provide for selection of the candidates under RBA category. The said contention was not accepted as it was noticed in the judgment that in terms of the notification (Advertisement Notice) issued on 7th of March, 1995, earlier notification of 30th of April, 1992 was superseded and it was also categorically mentioned that the provisions of SRO 126 of 1994 would be taken note of. In the said judgment dated 13th of July, 2001, direction had been issued to the respondents to consider claim of petitioner No.l who is a handicapped person. The said consideration was not accorded in compliance to the said judgment for sometime which prompted the petitioner to file contempt petition No.82-C of 2002 but during the pendency of contempt proceedings, respondent No.5, i.e. Secretary J&K Service Selection Board, Jammu, issued order dated 27.11.2002 indicating therein that in compliance to the judgment selection records were examined, the category which the petitioner claimed was not in force at the relevant point of time, therefore, petitioner was considered in open merit category who has secured 51.10 points whereas the last selected candidate in the open merit category had secured 53.40 points. Petitioner having failed to make out a grade, therefore, his claim is rejected. Petitioner having failed to make out a grade, therefore, his claim is rejected. When this order was brought to the notice of the Court, the contempt petition was disposed of as having become infructuous, however, petitioner was left free to challenge the said order dated 27.11.2002, hence the instant petition i.e. SWP No.462/2006. Petitioner has sought the relief of quashment of order dated 27.11.2002 and for issuance of command so as to compel the respondents to appoint him as Patwari under handicapped category. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was entitled to be selected as Patwari being a handicapped person as he was required to be given preference in terms of Rule 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules of 1994 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Reservation Rules of 1994). 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that preferential treatment as permissible under Rule 11 of the Reservation Rules of 1994 is available only when the petitioner will make his grade and in case he along with some other candidate would have been in same position, then he had a right of preference. When he does not figure in the merit so as to be at par at least with the last candidate selected, he cannot claim preferential treatment. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment captioned State of UP & anr, v. OM Prakash and others. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the judgment as referred was covering the subject higher qualification and preference vis-a-vis higher qualification was the issue determined. Considered. 6. The case of the petitioner in essence revolves round Rule 11 of the Reservation Rules of 1994. Rule 11 is reproduced here-under :- "11. Concession. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 10 and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of this rule, out of the total number of available vacancies (reserved as well as unreserved), handicapped persons to the extent of 2% and ex-servicemen and children of Defence Personnel to the extent of 5% shall get preferential treatment for selection in each service class, category and grade. (2) If a candidate belongs to reserved category, he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustment and if he belongs to open category he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustment. (2) If a candidate belongs to reserved category, he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustment and if he belongs to open category he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustment. This shall not affect the percentage of reservations provided under rule 10. " 7. Plain reading of the above Rule would indicated that out of the total number of available vacancies, both reserved as well as unreserved, handicapped persons to the extent of 2% and ex-servicemen and children of Defence Personnel to the extent of 5% shall get preferential treatment for selection in each service, class, category and grade. Sub-rule 2 of the said Rule would further indicate that if such a candidate as mentioned in sub-rule 1 belongs to reserved category, will be placed in that category and in case belongs to open category, will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustment but same will not effect the percentage of reservations provided in Rule 10. Admittedly handicapped person does not fall within the reserved category as is also clear from Rule 10 of the Reservation Rules of 1994 which provide for percentage of posts reserved for categories mentioned therein which does not include the handicapped persons. 8. Now the important question which emerges for consideration is as to "what the preferential treatment for selection occurring in rule 11 of the Reservation Rules of 1994 means"? The answer is very simple i.e. so far as handicapped persons are concerned, a special concession has been extended to them which is available to them only when they will make the grade and if their merit is at par with various other candidates of reserved category or open merit category, to which category handicapped candidates belong. In the instant case petitioner admittedly is a handicapped person, so preferential treatment is available to him only when his merit shall be at par with the last selected candidate from the open merit category. The position of the petitioner having secured 51.10 points as against last selected candidate who has secured 53.40 points in the open category, has not been disputed. A handicapped person having obtained 51.10 points cannot be selected over the head of a person who has secured 53.40 points, so the concession of preferential treatment is not available to him as being not at par in merit with the last selected candidate or candidates. A handicapped person having obtained 51.10 points cannot be selected over the head of a person who has secured 53.40 points, so the concession of preferential treatment is not available to him as being not at par in merit with the last selected candidate or candidates. To interpret rule otherwise would mean reservation for the handicapped persons. If that would have been the purport of Rule 11, the rule making authority would have incorporated handicapped persons as a category and would have reserved some percentage of seats as has been done in case of other categories like SC/ST. RBA etc. as clearly indicated in Rule 10 of the Reservation Rules of 1994. Handicapped were not in reserved category at the relevant time. 9. Preferential treatment in view of the stated position of the rule would apply when various candidates are eligible and possess the merit i.e. are equally positioned. The principle laid down in the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is quite applicable. In the reported judgment Honble Apex Court has quoted para 10 of the judgment titled Secretary AP Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu reported in 2003 (5) SCC 341. It shall be quite relevant to reproduce said para here-under :- "The word `preference in our view is capable of different shades of meaning taking colour from the context, purpose and object of its use under the scheme of things envisaged. Hence, it is to be construed not in an isolated or detached manner, ascribing a meaning of universal import, for all contingencies capable of an invariable application. The procedure for selection in the case involves a qualifying test, a written examination and an oral test or interview and the final list of selection has to be on the basis of the marks obtained in them. The suitability and all-round merit, if had to be adjudged in that manner only, what justification could there be for overriding all these merely because, a particular candidate is in possession of an additional qualification on the basis of which, a preference has also been envisaged. The rules do not provide for separate classification of those candidates or apply different norms of selection for them. The rules do not provide for separate classification of those candidates or apply different norms of selection for them. The `preference envisaged in the Rules, in our view, under the scheme of things and con textually also cannot mean, an absolute en bloc preference akin to reservation or separate and distinct method of selection for them alone. A mere rule of preference meant to give weightage to the additional qualification cannot be enforced as a rule of reservation or rule of complete precedence. Such a construction would not only determine the scheme of selection envisaged through the Public Service Commission on the basis of merit performance but also would work great hardship and injustice to those who possess the required minimum educational qualification with which they are entitled to compete with those possessing additional qualification too, and demonstrate their superiority meritwise and their suitability for the post. It is not to be viewed as a preferential right conferred even for taking up their claims for consideration. On the other hand , the preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when anyone or more of them by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-a-vis others in the matter of actual selection. " 10. After quoting the said para, the Honble Apex Court has held:- , "the word "preference" would mean that when the claims of all candidates who are eligible and who possess the requisite education qualification prescribed in the advertisement are taken for consideration and when one or more of them are found equally positioned, then only the additional qualification may be taken as a tilting factor, in favour of candidates vis-a-vis others in the merit list prepared by the Commission. But preference does not mean en block preference irrespective of inter se merit and suitability. " 11. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents at the judgment dealt with academic qualification, is true but the question therein was as to what the word "preference" means. In the reported judgment it was noticed that in terms of the advertisement, notice for filling up the posts of Homeopathic Medical Officers applications were invited. " 11. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents at the judgment dealt with academic qualification, is true but the question therein was as to what the word "preference" means. In the reported judgment it was noticed that in terms of the advertisement, notice for filling up the posts of Homeopathic Medical Officers applications were invited. The qualification prescribed was a recognized degree in Homeopathy or a recognized diploma in Homeopathy with a proviso to the effect that preference will be given to degree holders. It was contended that degree holders were entitled to preference; therefore, diploma holders were to be ignored. The said contention has been disallowed and it was held that the diploma in Homeopathy was prescribed in the advertisement as a minimum educational qualification entitling them to compete with the candidates possessing the degree. The word "preference" was interpreted to mean that when one or more of the candidates are found equally positioned, then only the additional qualification may be taken as a tilting factor. The preference does not mean en block preference irrespective of inter se merit and suitability. 12. The principle underlying the preferential treatment has been clearly indicated which also applies to the present case. As already concluded petitioner could claim preferential treatment as permissible under rule 11 of the Reservation Rules of 1994 only when he would have been equally positioned with other candidates in the open merit category. His position in merit being altogether on lower side, so by no stretch of imagination he could be given preference over the last selected meritorious candidate having secured 53.40 points as against 51.10 points secured by the petitioner. The petition for the foregoing reasons being devoid of merit is dismissed.