JUDGMENT BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) The Uttar Pradesh State Public Service Commission (Regulation of Procedure) Act, 1985 has been adopted by the State of Uttarakhand by Uttaranchal Adaptation and Modification Order, 2002. Section 11 of the said Act authorizes the Commission to make Rules not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act for regulation of its procedure. In terms thereof, Commission has made Rules. In the Rules, it has provided that a preliminary examination may be held for the purpose of screening aspirants in order to select manageable number of them for allowing them to sit in the main written examination. The Rule provides that the number of candidates to be admitted to main written examination is generally restricted to 20 times the number of vacancies to be filled, having regard to the various reservation categories. In relation to supplying vacancies in the posts of Assistant Review Officers and Review Officers, an advertisement was published. The same was responded by the appellants in these two appeals. They were asked to appear at the preliminary examination. They appeared in the said examination, but did not succeed. Later on, one of them, namely the appellant in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2011, filed a writ petition and obtained an interim order permitting him to sit in the main written examination. The reason for grant of the said interim order was that while the Commission did not reduce the number of candidates to be admitted to main written examination from 20 times the number of vacancies to be filled, Chairman of the Commission and the Chief Secretary purported to reduce the same to 15 times the number of vacancies. Such limited success of the appellant in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2011 led the appellants in the other appeal to file a separate writ petition. 2. The second writ petition was filed on 18th September, 2010. However, in the meantime, on 3rd September, 2010, main written examination was held. By the judgment and order under appeal, both the writ petitions have been dismissed. 2. The second writ petition was filed on 18th September, 2010. However, in the meantime, on 3rd September, 2010, main written examination was held. By the judgment and order under appeal, both the writ petitions have been dismissed. It was and still is the case of the Commission that although the number of candidates to be admitted to main written examination was reduced to 15 times the number of vacancies, but having regard to the fact that the cut off mark within 15 times the number of vacancies was 135, it became obligatory to allow all persons, who had 135 marks in the preliminary examination, to appear in the main written examination. The number of candidates, thus, actually admitted to main written examination stood at 19.60 times the number of vacancies to be filled. It is also the contention of the Commission that the Rules speak about “generally restricted to 20 times” and, accordingly, the same could be reduced from 20 times. 3. We are of the view that the expression, “generally restricted to 20 times” obliges the Commission to stick to 20 times the number, but at the same time, gives it authority to increase the same. It does not authorize it to reduce the same from 20 times. The Commission, having made the said Rule, unless the Commission altered the same, it was obliged to honour the same and could not take recourse to some other standard on the basis of decision of the Chairman of the Commission influenced by the Chief Secretary of the State. We are also of the view that since all persons, who got upto 135 in the preliminary examination, could not make themselves 20 times the number of vacancies to be filled, it was obligatory on the part of the Commission to allow those who had got 134 to appear in the main written examination. The Commission has brought to our notice that three of the appellants in these appeals got 134 in the preliminary examination. In those circumstances, three appellants, alongwith others, who had got 134, should have had been allowed by the Commission to sit in the main written examination. The Commission has brought to our notice that three of the appellants in these appeals got 134 in the preliminary examination. In those circumstances, three appellants, alongwith others, who had got 134, should have had been allowed by the Commission to sit in the main written examination. However, since the appellants in Special Appeal No. 89 of 2011 came to this Court for the first time, after the main written examination was held, despite two of them having had secured 134 marks in the preliminary examination, we are unable to do anything for them. 4. The sole appellant in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2011 approached this Court before the preliminary examination was held and obtained an interim order and, in pursuance therewith, appeared in the main written examination. We have held that, in accordance with law, the said appellant was entitled to appear in the main written examination. 5. In the circumstances, for the reasons as above, we set aside the judgment and order under appeal Reported in 2011 (1) U.D. 586 , but at the same time, dismiss Special Appeal No. 89 of 2011 and the connected writ petition and allow the Special Appeal No. 90 of 2011 and the connected writ petition, and declare that the appellant in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2011 was entitled to appear in the main written examination.