Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The State has not filed its counter affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel says that the State is only a proforma party as the main dispute is between the petitioner and Public Service Commission and the private respondents. Private respondent has filed another supplementary affidavit which is taken on record. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to file the rejoinder affidavit. 2. Heard Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for respondent no. 4 on merit. 3. The petitioner was a candidate for examination for the post of Naib Tehsildar (i.e. a Revenue Official) which was conducted by State Public Service Commission. The short dispute in the present matter is that one of the essential conditions for a candidate in the above examination was to indicate in the application form as to whether he is in Government service or not. The second information which a candidate had to give was as to whether his name is registered with the State Employment Exchange. Admittedly for both the columns, the petitioner has not given information. Meaning thereby that he was neither an employee of the State Government nor he was registered with the State Employment Exchange Department. The petitioner participated in the said examination and first appeared in preliminary examination. After qualifying the preliminary examination, the petitioner appeared in the main written examination and thereafter after qualifying the main examination, he appeared in the interview finally on 20.2.2013. In the said examination the petitioner appeared as general category candidate. Ultimately the public service commission rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not filed his registration number with the State Employment Exchange which was mandatory, as admittedly the petitioner was not an employee of the State or Central Government. Furnishing of the registration number with the Employment Exchange was a mandatory condition. This condition was exempted only in the case of Government employees or also in the case of Ex-servicemen who were registered with the District Soldier Board. Since the petitioner came neither of these categories, his candidature was rejected. Furnishing of the registration number with the Employment Exchange was a mandatory condition. This condition was exempted only in the case of Government employees or also in the case of Ex-servicemen who were registered with the District Soldier Board. Since the petitioner came neither of these categories, his candidature was rejected. On this the petitioner sought information of the marks under the Right to Information Act and he was informed that he was in the select list and the cut off marks for general category candidate for the post of Naib Tehsildar was 242 whereas the marks obtained by the petitioner was 245. The last candidate who has been selected is also before this court and is presently being represented by Mr. Arvind Vashisth. 4. From the records which have been filed before this Court particularly letter dated 8.8.2011 which is a communication between Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand and Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, it reveals that the State Government has replied to certain clarifications of the Public Service Commission. The query of the State Public Service Commission on this aspect, which is presently before this Court, was that how can a mandatory condition of registration with the State Employment Exchange can be fulfilled by such persons who are already in employment either with the State Government/semi State Government or private institution and if such condition is imposed many of the candidates would be deprived from appearing in the selection process. To this query, the State Government replied that such persons who are already an employee under the Government Services and are desirous to appear or apply for class III posts in the State Government, for them the mandatory condition for registration with the State Employment Exchange will not be required. In other words, such employees working under the State Government were exempted from the said mandatory condition. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not under the employment of State Government or in the Central Government. He is, however, an employee of Life Insurance Corporation and works as a Development Officer. In other words, such employees working under the State Government were exempted from the said mandatory condition. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not under the employment of State Government or in the Central Government. He is, however, an employee of Life Insurance Corporation and works as a Development Officer. The document shown by the petitioner before this Court indicates that the petitioner was appointed as a Probationary Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, and there is absolutely no doubt in anybody’s mind as to the status of Life Insurance Corporation of India which is that of a State Instrumentality, as the State has deep and pervasive control on Life Insurance Corporation of India. In fact the Corporation is a creature of the statute. Therefore, the petitioner though not strictly a Government servant is an employee of a State instrumentality. 6. Now having said this, let us also appreciate the purposes to be registered with employment exchange. The very query of the Public Service Commission to the State Government and the reply given by the State Government to this query, a reference of which has already been given in the preceding paragraph, shows that there is a genuine difficulty expressed by Public Service Commission as to in given contingency the people who are already under gainful employment may be deprived for appearing in selection process conducted by Public Service Commission for class III Post for the reason that they are already under employment and for that reason they are not registered with State Employment Exchange because the very purpose for getting registered with State Employment Exchange is that he is unemployed and therefore seeks employment. The petitioner was gainfully employed in a Public Corporation i.e. LIC as a Development Officer. Therefore, there was no useful purpose for him to get registered with the State Employment Exchange. The State Government has already exempted this mandatory condition for Government employees. In clear view of this Court such an exemption was also liable to be extended for those who are in employment with the instrumentality of the State. 7. Therefore, there was no useful purpose for him to get registered with the State Employment Exchange. The State Government has already exempted this mandatory condition for Government employees. In clear view of this Court such an exemption was also liable to be extended for those who are in employment with the instrumentality of the State. 7. In fact this Court in the case of Ashwani Rawat v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and others (Writ Petition No. (S/S) 477 of 2013), where for the same examination, such an exemption has been extended to the petitioner, who was working as a Seed Inspector in Uttarakhand State Seed & Organic Production Certification Agency which is again a statutory body. This Court also feels that the exemption given to such persons is also liable to be extended to the petitioner as well. Moreover, before the petitioner was gainfully employed in Life Insurance Corporation, he was registered with the State Employment Exchange and for obvious reason i.e. since he was now employed in a Public Corporation, the condition of such registration was no more required. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 22.4.2013 is hereby quashed. A mandamus is hereby issued to the State Public Service Commission to declare the result of the petitioner and in case he has obtained more marks than the last selected candidate, he shall be declared successful and therefore sent for training. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Mr. Arvind Vashisth has filed an affidavit before this court submitting that admittedly he has got lesser marks than the petitioner. However, he submits that there are total 30 posts of Naib Tehsildar and only 29 persons have been called for training, which includes respondent no. 4. In case this is so, after adjusting the petitioner, in case there is any post vacant, it may be given to the next candidate in merit. 10. No order as to costs.