JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. On 25.8.2011 the State Public Service Commission issued an advertisement calling for applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Junior Engineer in various Government Departments such as Public Works Department, Irrigation Department and Minor Irrigation Department. Subsequently by way of corrigendum, certain posts of Junior Engineer in Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam was also advertised and included in the same selection process. The State Public Service Commission right from the beginning was not clear as to whether they would straightway hold the main examination for the candidates or in case of large number of applicants, they would first hold a preliminary examination and after screening candidates only a limited number of candidates would be called for the main examination. Therefore the initial form which a candidate had to fill was an OMR form. There were various columns such as the name of the candidate, reservation category if any, qualifications, the post to which a candidate wanted to apply, (as there were posts for civil, electrical, mechanical and agricultural engineers), etc. 3. Column No. 17 of the O.M.R. (i.e. Optical Mark Reader) form which is the subject matter of present dispute reads as under : “Optional Subject Code (If Applicable)” 4. According to the counsel for the State Public Service Commission Mr. B.D. Kandpal, there was no ambiguity on any aspect to this matter and it was clearly given in the advertisement that the filling of column No. 17 was mandatory. In column No. 17 optional subject was to be given and the optional subject was Diploma in the concerned branch of engineering. It was specifically stated that if this “Code” is not filled by a candidate, his application form would stand rejected. 5. However, the counsel for the petitioner would argue that in the guidelines which were given along with the application form giving instructions on item no. 17 (with which we are presently concern), the instructions were very specific that the optional subject should be filled if the same is “applicable”. Therefore, there was an apparent confusion in the mind of a candidate, as though at one point it was specifically stated that column no. 17 (with which we are presently concern), the instructions were very specific that the optional subject should be filled if the same is “applicable”. Therefore, there was an apparent confusion in the mind of a candidate, as though at one point it was specifically stated that column no. 17 has to be mandatorily filled and in case it is not filled the application form will be rejected yet in the “instructions” provided with the application form it was said that it should only to be filled, if it is applicable. 6. The learned counsel for the State Public Commission has argued that asking for optional subject from the candidates had a specific purpose, as the question paper consisted of two parts, paper no. 1 was general questions to be asked from all candidates irrespective of their branch of engineering and paper no. 2 was for specific to special branches. Since the petitioners have not filled column No. 17 giving their optional subject code, the Public Service Commission was not clear as to which branch the petitioners have applied and their candidature was hence rejected. 7. However, it is also true that after the forms were filled, the Public Service Commission asked clarification from the candidates through its website whereby it gave a list of 2311 candidates whose candidature was rejected on different grounds which was given against their names in the column in the website and the candidates were asked to give their explanation. According to the petitioners, they gave their reply stating that due to mistake they have not filled column no. 17 and they may be allowed to rectify the same. However, without giving any finding or deciding the representation of the candidates, the petitioners received a letter from the Public Service Commission saying that their application forms have been rejected. As to what has happened to their applications, which were sent by them in pursuance of the objections called for by the State Public Service Commission, has not been explained by the State Public Service Commission. 8. All the petitioners before this Court are such candidates whose application forms were rejected because of reason that they have not filled column no. 17 of O.M.R. form. However, in all cases by an interim order of this Court, they were directed to appear in the written examination. 8. All the petitioners before this Court are such candidates whose application forms were rejected because of reason that they have not filled column no. 17 of O.M.R. form. However, in all cases by an interim order of this Court, they were directed to appear in the written examination. This Court has been informed that subsequently they all appeared in the written examination as well as the interview. Some of the petitioners in these petitions have been declared as successful in the final result. However, the State Public Service Commission has not sent its recommendations in favour of the petitioners to the State Government as the matter is still sub judice before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the State Public Service Commission has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 76 of 2010 (Yamini Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand and another), whereby the special appeal was dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court was upheld on the ground that since the appellant failed to fill up column “no.12” so as to claim “reservation” as an Uttarakhand female candidate, her claim cannot be evaluated as a reserved category of Uttarakhand Female, as she never applied for the same. The Division Bench in its judgment passed in the said Special Appeal had this to say: “3. We have considered the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. All those candidates, who were desirous of being considered by way of reservation, were required to respond to column No.12. Column No.12 envisaged reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Back Ward Categories, Defence Personnel, Ex Service Men, Sports Persons, Government Servants earlier employed in the State of Uttaranchal, Uttaranchal Females, Physically Handicap candidates, whether they were possessing low vision, hearing impairment or locomoter disability. Every candidate, who was desirous of being considered for any of the aforesaid reserved categories, was liable to respond to column No.12 of the OMR sheet depicting the particular reservation the candidate was claiming. Undisputedly, the appellant herein did not fill up column No.12 so as to claim reservation as an Uttaranchal female. As such, the learned Single Judge declined the claim of the appellant by passing the impugned order dated 05.05.2010 to issue a direction to the respondent to consider the appellant against the reserved category of Uttaranchal Females. Undisputedly, the appellant herein did not fill up column No.12 so as to claim reservation as an Uttaranchal female. As such, the learned Single Judge declined the claim of the appellant by passing the impugned order dated 05.05.2010 to issue a direction to the respondent to consider the appellant against the reserved category of Uttaranchal Females. We find no infirmity in the instant determination rendered by the learned Single Judge. It is apparent that the appellant did not choose to claim appointment by way of reservation, inasmuch as, she did not fill up column No.12. Having failed to fill up column No.12, so as to claim reservation as an Uttaranchal female, even though she may have been awarded more marks than other Uttaranchal females who sought such reservation, her claim cannot be evaluated from the reserved category of Uttaranchal Females, as she never applied for the same. 4. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant special appeal and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed.” 10. However, the ratio of the above case would not be applicable in the present case as what was there before the Hon’ble Division Bench in the said case was that the candidate had clearly refrained from applying as a reserve category candidate and thereafter when she sought benefit of that reservation before this Court, her claim was rejected. Such is not the case before this Court. This is also not a case where “reservation” is an issue. Moreover, “lack of clarity” which is an issue here could not be an issue in the case referred by the learned counsel for the Commission. 11. This Court is hence of a considered view that in the advertisement issued by the Commission, there was an apparent lack of clarity, particularly, regarding column no. 17. On the one hand, the Commission had asked the candidates to fill the code for optional subject failing which their applications would be rejected but, on the other hand, in the instructions the Commission has asked the candidates to fill column no. 17 only if it is applicable in their case. There was a genuine confusion in the mind of the present petitioners, as it is also argued, that the form is being filled for a preliminary examination only there would be no requirement for giving an optional subject. 12. 17 only if it is applicable in their case. There was a genuine confusion in the mind of the present petitioners, as it is also argued, that the form is being filled for a preliminary examination only there would be no requirement for giving an optional subject. 12. Be that as it may, the fact also remains that out of a total number of 778 vacancies, the applicants who had applied would have been somewhere around 12000 and in the list of 12000 there was a “confusion” in the case of 1050 candidates, as this is the number of the candidates where form stood rejected on the ground of non filling column No.17. However, nothing is being said for these candidates as the present consideration is only being made for those candidates who are presently before this Court. Nevertheless, the confusion by which the candidates including the petitioners refrained from filing column no. 17 appears to be genuine. They are not liable to be punished for the same. 13. There is another aspect of the matter, which is that some of the petitioners at least have now been declared successful. Should their candidature be rejected on a mere ground of a “technicality”. This Court feels that on balance there is also a special equity in favour of such candidates/petitioners. 14. All the writ petitions therefore succeed. The candidature of each of the candidate rejected on the ground of non filling of column no.17 is held to be wrong. All orders to that effect are set aside. A mandamus is issued to the respondents that in case any of the petitioners who have appeared in the examination on the strength of interim order, their result be declared in case not already declared, and their names be recommended to the State Government for appointment, if any of these candidates are successful. 15. No order as to costs.