JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. Both the writ petitions are tied up together for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the facts and question of law involved in both the petitions are identical and the material documents relied on by both side except that of the personal testimonials of the petitioners are also same and hence the cases were taken up together for hearing and disposal and WP(C) 200 of 2009 has been taken up as the lead case and the material documents submitted by the parties referred from that case record. 2. The only question fell for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the writ petitioners have been discriminated and/or denied appointment to the post of Wireless Operator(Assistant Sub-Inspector, for short, ASI) wrongly and arbitrarily and whether the recruitment board failed to correctly construe the provisions of Rule 7 of the recruitment rules. 3. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the petitioner of WP(C) No. 200 of 2009 and learned senior counsel, Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji for the petitioner of WP(C) No. 201 of 2009. Also heard learned G.A. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in both the cases and learned counsel, Mr. B. Banerji for respondent Nos. 5 of WP(C) No. 200 of 2009. Other private respondents did not participate in the proceedings. 4. Pursuant to an advertisement made by respondent No. 3, the Chairman of the recruitment board, for direct recruitment to the post of Wireless Operator(ASI), Suman Das, the petitioner of WP(C) No. 200 of 2009, applied for the post as a Scheduled Caste(for short, S.C.) candidate and Milan Gerard Debbarma and Partha Kalai, both the petitioners of WP(C) No. 201 of 2009 also applied for the post as Scheduled Tribe(for short, S.T.) candidates. So far as the counter affidavit of the official respondents is concerned, the advertisement was published in various newspapers, namely the Telegraph, Dainik Sambad, Daily Desher Katha, Syandan Patrika, Tripura Darpan, etc. and also in the electronic media. The number of post was 70(seventy) in total and out of it 39(thirty nine) posts were reserved for S.T. category, 12(twelve) posts were reserved for S.C. category and 19 posts were for Un-Reserved(for short, U.R.) category. Educational and technical qualification required for recruitment to the post was given in item No. V of the advertisement, which is pari materia to Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules. 5. Educational and technical qualification required for recruitment to the post was given in item No. V of the advertisement, which is pari materia to Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules. 5. The recruitment board consisted of 5(five) members to which respondent No. 3 was the Chairman(annexure-R/1 to the counter affidavit of the official respondents). The selection process was conducted by written test for 50 marks, practical test for 25 marks and interview for 25 marks. The recruitment board decided that the pass mark for the written test and practical test should be 40% in case of reserved category candidates and 50% in case of U.R. category candidates. At first written test and practical test were taken and thereafter interview was conducted. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that they have both educational and technical qualification as prescribed in the rules and embodied in the advertisement and they got requisite marks both in the written and practical test and thereafter they were called in interview also and they appeared in the interview and secured more than 40 percent of the cutoff marks meant for reserved category candidates and their names also appeared in the select list prepared by the respondents for "educationally and technically qualified candidates" whereas, they were not given appointment and were wrongly discriminated. 7. The stand of the official respondents is that the educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment as prescribed in Rule 7(a) is meant for the general category candidates which includes S.C. and S.T. category candidates also who qualify on merit within the vacancy meant for U.R. category candidates. Though 19(nineteen) posts were only un-reserved posts, the respondents ultimately appointed 23(twenty three) candidates under un-reserved category and since the petitioners could not come within the position of 23(twenty three) candidates they could not be given appointment to the post of Wireless Operator(ASI). It is also contended by the official respondents that though advertisement was made for 70(seventy) posts recruitment was made to 74(seventy four) posts(38 S.T., 14 S.C. and 22 U.R.). It is the stand of the official respondents that Rule 7(a) prescribes educational and other qualification for general category candidates which includes S.C. and S.T. category candidates and Rule 7(b) meant for reserved category candidates, i.e. S.T. and S.C. Those who came in the merit list of general category candidate within the vacancy position they have been regularly appointed. It is the stand of the official respondents that Rule 7(a) prescribes educational and other qualification for general category candidates which includes S.C. and S.T. category candidates and Rule 7(b) meant for reserved category candidates, i.e. S.T. and S.C. Those who came in the merit list of general category candidate within the vacancy position they have been regularly appointed. According to the respondents, Rule 7(b) meant for the reserved category candidates who do not have the requisite technical qualification and a separate merit list was prepared for the reserved category candidates, i.e. S.C. and S.T. candidates and the petitioners though were technically qualified since could not come within the merit position of the separate merit list prepared for reserved category candidates they could not be appointed. 8. Interpretation of Rule 7 of the recruitment rules is the most important factor for decision of the writ petition. Rule 7 reads as follows: "7) Education and other qualification required for direct recruitment (a) Higher Secondary(Physics/Chemistry and mathematics/Matriculation/Madhyamik with science or equivalent. AND PMG II/Special or 18 months certificate/Diploma in Wireless Operator Trade from any recognized Institute by the Govt. OR Man of Police Force and Ex-Serviceman who have requisite Educational Qualification as in 7(a) having minimum 5 years experience in the signal Trade. Note : Preference will be given to those who know type writing of having experience in the Teleprinter Operation. b) SC/ST Candidates with basic educational qualification should be given requisite technical training by the Department. Operation of such training shall be for a period not exceeding on year. During training, trainees should be given monthly stipend of Rs. 500/- per head. Number of trainees should not exceed number of vacancies meant for ST/SC at any point of time. Each trainees shall have to pass prescribe examination as per R.R. during training period in not more then three attempts before being considered for appointment to the post of Wireless Operator." 9. A bare reading of Rule 7 makes it abundantly clear that for direct recruitment to the post of Wireless Operator(ASI) a candidate must have educational and technical qualification as prescribed in (a) heading. A bare reading of Rule 7 makes it abundantly clear that for direct recruitment to the post of Wireless Operator(ASI) a candidate must have educational and technical qualification as prescribed in (a) heading. In the heading (b) of Rule 7, it appears that the reserved category candidates who have got basic educational qualification but did not have the technical qualification as prescribed in Rule 7(a), such reserved category candidates also may be selected and thereafter they should be provided necessary training for one year and during training period they should get stipend of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) per month and the candidates who will succeed in the training will be appointed in the post. Therefore, it is evident that Rule 7(b) is a concession and/or relaxation for reserved category candidates and they cannot be equally placed with that of the candidates having educational and technical qualification as prescribed in Rule 7(a). 10. The petitioners contended that the petitioner of WP(C) No. 200 of 2009 applied as a S.C. category candidate since he belonged to S.C. category and the petitioners of WP(C) No. 201 of 2009 applied as S.T. category candidates since they belonged to S.T. category. Though the respondents in their counter affidavit stated that the petitioners applied for general category post but it has been admitted that the petitioners belonged to S.C. and S.T. category candidates respectively. It is therefore an admitted position that the petitioner Suman Das belonged to S.C. category and the petitioner Milan Gerard Debbarma and Partha Kalai belonged to S.T. category. It is also an admitted position that the petitioners have got both educational and technical qualifications as required in Rule 7(a). It is also an admitted position that they appeared in the written test and practical test and thereafter they also appeared in the interview. After the interview process was over the official respondents prepared a merit list of technically qualified candidates(Annexure-8/A to the writ petition). That merit list consists of the marks secured by the candidates in written test, practical test and interview. The name of petitioner Milan Gerard Debbarma appeared in Sl. No. 27 of that list and he secured total 54.50 marks. The name of petitioner Suman Das appeared in Sl. No. 28 and he secured 53.75 marks. The name of petitioner Partha Kalai appeared in Sl. No. 38 of the list and he secured 48.00 marks. The name of petitioner Milan Gerard Debbarma appeared in Sl. No. 27 of that list and he secured total 54.50 marks. The name of petitioner Suman Das appeared in Sl. No. 28 and he secured 53.75 marks. The name of petitioner Partha Kalai appeared in Sl. No. 38 of the list and he secured 48.00 marks. Out of that list, according to the respondents, Sl. No. 1 to 23 has already been given regular appointment. It is categorically and clearly mentioned in the list that the petitioners belonged to S.C. and S.T. category. It is also evident that they secured more than 40 percent marks in the examination/interview of selection process. They being reserved category candidates were therefore eligible for appointment to the post of Wireless Operator(ASI) but they have not been given appointment. 11. Learned G.A. contended that since they belonged to reserved category and since the select list for the S.C. and S.T. category candidates was prepared separately and the petitioners did not come within the merit position of the reserved category posts, they could not be appointed to the post of Wireless Operator. It is the stand of the respondents, submitted learned G.A. that separate list was prepared for all S.C. and S.T. category candidates as per the recruitment rules. 12. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas and learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji candidly submitted that the candidates, having requisite educational and technical qualification, form one class and the S.C. and S.T. category candidates who have got no technical qualification have been given a privilege under the rules to be selected for training before appointment to the post from another class and so both are distinctly separate classes. It is contended that the persons possessing no technical qualification would not be regarded and appointed directly to the post of Wireless Operator but they would only be regarded as stipendiary candidates and thereafter they would be given one year training and if they succeed in the training only then they would be appointed to the post after training. If they fail to qualify they will not be appointed and so the petitioners who already possess the technical qualification they cannot be compared with the candidates who had no technical qualification, rather selected as per provision of Rule 7(b). 13. I have meticulously gone through the recruitment rules and the advertisement. If they fail to qualify they will not be appointed and so the petitioners who already possess the technical qualification they cannot be compared with the candidates who had no technical qualification, rather selected as per provision of Rule 7(b). 13. I have meticulously gone through the recruitment rules and the advertisement. I have no hesitation to hold that the recruitment board failed to correctly construe the provision of Rule 7 of the recruitment Rules. A reading of Rule 7(a) makes it abundantly clear that the candidates who have got educational and technical qualification they should be considered as eligible candidates for selection through an appropriate selection process whereas, Rule 7(b) as it appears is a concession and/or a relaxation for the reserved category candidates who has got basic educational qualification but did not have the technical qualification and so to maintain recruitment from the reserved category candidates, a relaxation has been given in Rule 7(b). The candidates selected pursuant to Rule 7(b) should be given requisite training on monthly stipend and after they successfully complete the training they would be given appointment. The respondents were absolutely wrong in not giving appointment to the petitioners who had both educational and technical qualification and appeared in all the tests, i.e. written test, practical test and interview and secured more than the cutoff marks being reserved category candidate. As it appears, the recruitment board has prepared separate list for the S.C. and S.T. category candidates who appeared in written test and interview(Annexure-8/A to the writ petition) and it also appears that though the petitioners were having with technical qualification which is mentioned in Annexure-8/A as well as in Annexure-R/2, they were not appointed in the reserved posts meant for S.C. and S.T. category candidates. Rather, they were excluded from selection considering the merit list of the candidates who had no technical qualification. 14. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas has submitted that the merit list shows that some of the candidates were given 25 marks out of total 25 in the interview whereas some were given only 5 or zero marks out of 25. Referring to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. reported in : (1981) 1 SCC 722 (para 18 and 19) learned counsel, Mr. Referring to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. reported in : (1981) 1 SCC 722 (para 18 and 19) learned counsel, Mr. Biswas has submitted that allocation of more than 15 percent of the total marks for oral interview as has been done in this case was illegal and so the interview process was wrong. The Supreme Court has categorically held-- ".........................We are of the view that, under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15 per cent of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid." 15. Admittedly, in the present case the selection process was conducted fixing total 100 marks out of which 25 was fixed for oral interview. Fixing of more than 15 marks, as has been held by the Apex Court was unconstitutional but the petitioners in these cases have not challenged the selection process, rather they sought for their appointment as per the selection process undertaken by the respondents. Though allocation of more than 15 marks is found to be illegal and unconstitutional, I find no reason to hold that selection process is liable to be interfered since the selection process has not been challenged. Rather the petitioners sought for their appointment basing on the selection process. 16. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel also referred the case of Zenit Mataplast Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 338 and has submitted that the action of the State must always be fair and transparent. In the present case, the selection process was not fair and so necessary direction should be given by this Court. Para 27 of the judgment in Zenit Mataplast Private Limited(supra) is very important and so I think to reproduce para 27 of that judgment which reads as follows: "27. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. The decision should be made by the application of known principles and rules and in general such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is, but if a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law(vide S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, : AIR 1967 SC 1427 , p. 1434, para 14 and Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Coprn., : (1988) 1 SCC 166 .) Though learned counsel raised the point that selection process was not transparent and fair but the petitioners relied on that selection process. No particular point raised as to how the selection process was unfair or non-transparent. Therefore, I find no force in this argument of learned counsel. 17. Since the petitioners belonged to S.C. and S.T. category and since they were having with the educational and technical qualification as required for selection to the post of Wireless Operator(ASI) and since in the written test, practical test and in the interview they obtained qualifying marks, the respondents were bound to appoint them in the post of Wireless Operator(ASI) as reserved category candidates. The respondents would fill up the vacancy of U.R. category candidates with the first 19 candidates of the select list irrespective of their class and category. The reserved category posts ought to have been filled up from the eligible candidates who had both educational and technical qualification and succeeded in the tests obtaining the requisite marks. Names of the petitioners appeared in the "merit list of technically qualified candidates"(Annexure-8/A to the writ petition), and so they were entitled to be appointed regularly to the reserved category posts. With a complete wrong notion that S.C. and S.T. candidates cannot come under the purview of regular appointment, selected pursuant to Rule 7(a) of the Rules, petitioners have been deprived from appointment. With a complete wrong notion that S.C. and S.T. candidates cannot come under the purview of regular appointment, selected pursuant to Rule 7(a) of the Rules, petitioners have been deprived from appointment. After giving regular appointment of eligible candidates in the reserved category posts, the respondents would prepare a separate list of reserved category candidates, i.e. S.T. and S.C. category candidates for the remaining posts left unfilled for those candidates who had no technical qualification and only has got educational qualification and would appoint them on stipend as prescribed in Rule 7(b). In my considered opinion, the respondents wrongly discarded the petitioners from the selection process and hence the writ petition deserves merit for consideration and accordingly I allow the writ petition. 18. In the course of hearing learned counsel, Mr. Biswas and learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji, submitted that they have no grievance against the private respondents and the petitioners sought no relief against the private respondents. 19. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall take immediate step for appointment of the petitioners regularly to the post of Wireless Operator(ASI) notionally from the date the other candidates in the same selection process were directly and regularly appointed and if there is no post, supernumerary posts should be created and the petitioners should be appointed accordingly and the entire process should be completed within 60(sixty) days from today. 20. Parties are to bear their own cost.