JUDGMENT : Soumitra Pal, J. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed in W.P. 15719 (W) of 2009 (Mustakim Ali Khan v. State of West Bengal and others) whereby the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition by holding, inter alia, as under:- "Rule 3 of the said Rules provides for appointment of persons to be made in the manner as specified in Rule-7. Rule 7 contemplates selection on the basis of result of Regional Level Selection Test comprising written examination, evaluation of qualifications and personality tests of the candidates. However the first proviso to Rule 4 provides for a candidate to get preference over another who had qualified in written examination but has no desirable qualification. Since Mr. Dhar had not pressed his client's challenge to the vires of the said Rule, it is not necessary for this Court to examine whether there is an omission in Rule 4 when read with Rules 3 and 7 of the said Rules, in applying the provision for preference to candidates with regard to only written examination."………. "It is noticed that in the case considered where the requisition did not specify that preference would be given to certain candidates yet the Supreme Court had declared the law regarding preference to be that where any Rule or guideline provides preference in respect of some higher qualification it only means that all other requirements being equal, a person possessing higher additional qualification will be preferred. The interpretation of the word 'requirement' as made by Mr. Gangopadhyay that it is to do with qualification and had no effect whatsoever on marks obtained in the written examination, is not acceptable to this Court. The first proviso to Rule 4 is as follows:- ……………… The said proviso makes applicable exercise of preference in favour of a candidate as desirable qualification over another, both having qualified in written examination. Thus, the equal requirement declared by the Supreme Court must in the circumstances apply to the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination. In view of the aforesaid this Court finds the submissions made by Mr. Dhar to be of substance. The respondent nos. Thus, the equal requirement declared by the Supreme Court must in the circumstances apply to the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination. In view of the aforesaid this Court finds the submissions made by Mr. Dhar to be of substance. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 will forthwith allow the petitioner to take the personality test/interview for his candidature being considered for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher under Work Education subject in the 8th Regional Level Selection Test and thereafter, if the petitioner is found duly qualified, to appoint him in the post kept vacant pursuant to interim order dated 9th September, 2009 which though limited by that order was subsequently by order dated 7th December, 2010 made to continue until further order." 2. The facts, in short, are that the respondents no.1 in appeal, that is the writ petitioner, pursuant to advertisement made by the Central School Service Commission, had applied for being appointed in the post of Assistant Teacher in Work Education (pass) subject in 8th Regional Selection Test, 2007. The said respondent participated in the selection process. He obtained 62.5 marks out of 95 marks. Though the last general candidate, having B.Ed degree who had obtained 59.5 marks out of 95 marks in the written test, was allowed to appear in the personality test, however, the authorities refused to allow the respondent to participate in the personality test on the ground that preference was given to trained candidate having B.Ed degree. It was submitted that as B.Ed degree is not an essential qualification, it was illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory and bad in law in allowing the last general candidate, having B.Ed degree to appear in the personality test which was violative of the constitutional rights granted under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved the writ petition was filed. The relevant prayers therein are as under: "(b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents, particularly the respondent Nos. Aggrieved the writ petition was filed. The relevant prayers therein are as under: "(b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents, particularly the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and/or their men, agents or subordinates to show cause as to why they should not be directed to allow the candidature of the petitioner to participate in the personality test/interview for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher under Work Education subject in the 8th Regional Level Selection Test, on the basis of written examination and marks obtained in the said examination, which is much higher then the marks obtained by the last candidate having the B.Ed. degree appeared in the personality test forthwith; (c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents, particularly the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and/or their men, agents or subordinates not to show cause as to why they should not be directed to allow the candidature for the personality test for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the Work Education subject in any school and further to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post in question in a school on the basis of the said personality test forthwith; (d) A writ in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the Respondents and/or their men, agents or subordinates from recommending any candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher under Work Education subject from the 8th Regional Level Selection Test held by Regional School Service Commission, Western Region till disposal of the instant writ petition; (g) Interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from filling up one post of Assistant Teacher under the Work Education Group by the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Western Region from 8th Regional Level Selection test till disposal of the instant writ petition;" 3. The said writ petition was disposed of by passing the impugned order as already noted. 4. Mr. Abhijit Gangopadhay, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, relying on the Memorandum of Appeal, submitted that the learned Judge erred in law and in fact in not holding that preference is given to a candidate having desirable qualification over a candidate not having desirable qualification. As elimination of a candidate not having desirable qualification is automatic, the decision of the School Service Commission was lawful. As elimination of a candidate not having desirable qualification is automatic, the decision of the School Service Commission was lawful. Moreover, the learned Judge erred in law and in fact in giving a wrong meaning to the first proviso to Rule 4 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules 2006 (for short the Rules). Moreover, the learned Judge erred in applying the principles of law with regard to "preference". Referring to Rule 12(6) of the Rules submission was that after evaluation of the answer script of the written examination each Regional Commission prepares a subject-wise, medium-wise, category-wise and genderwise list of the candidates, qualifying for the personality test on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the written examination and on evaluation of academic qualification taken together. Under first proviso to Rule 12(6) the number of qualified candidates to be called for the personality test should not exceed 1.5 times the number of actual vacancies published at the time of declaration of the result of written examination. It was submitted that there was a total of 63 vacancies. 95 candidates qualified for the personality test. On a query it was submitted that had proviso to Rule 4 not been applied, the writ petitioner would have been in the list of qualified candidates who were called for personality test. Mr. Gangopadhay had relied on the judgments in Sher Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 200 ; in Government of AP v. P. Dilipkumar, (1993) 2 SCC 310 and Sunita Agarwal v. State of Haryana, (2000) 2 SCC 615 . 5. Mr. Pratik Dhar, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, submitted that in Paper I his client had scored 40 marks out of 60 marks and in Paper II 2.5 marks out of 10. On evaluation of academic qualifications he secured 20 out of 25 marks. Thus the said respondent had scored 62.5 marks out of 95 marks. 5 marks were for viva voce. Though the respondent secured more marks than the last selected candidate, he was not called for interview. According to him the method of recruitment is governed by Rule 3 which stipulates that appointment of persons to the post mentioned is made by selection (direct recruitment) through the Regional Commission in the manner as specified in Rule 7. Though the respondent secured more marks than the last selected candidate, he was not called for interview. According to him the method of recruitment is governed by Rule 3 which stipulates that appointment of persons to the post mentioned is made by selection (direct recruitment) through the Regional Commission in the manner as specified in Rule 7. Rule 7 speaks of manner of selection of a teacher which shall be made on the basis of the result of the selection test comprising written examination, evaluation of qualification and personality test of the candidates. Rule 7 does not speak of Rule 4. Proviso to Rule 4 speaks of preference of a candidate having the desirable qualification. Rule 4 does not speak of the manner of selection but of eligibility. Rule 4 cannot reduce the applicability of Rule 7. In case of conflict, Rule 4 comes into play. As desirability cannot be equated to essential qualification, Rule 3 and 4 operate in their respect fields. Mr. Dhar had relied on the judgments in Secretary (Health) Department of Health & FW v. Dr. Anita Puri: (1996) 6 SCC 282 ; in Bibhudatta Mohanti v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 16 and in Secretary A.P Public Service Commission v. YVVR Srinivasulu, (2003) 5 SCC 341 . 6. The issue to be considered is whether while selecting a candidate, proviso to Rule 4 can have precedence over Rule 7. 7. In order to consider the issue, it is appropriate to refer to Rule 3, relevant portion of Rule 4 and Rule 7 of the Rules which are as under:- Rule 3. Method of Recruitment. – The appointment of persons to the post mentioned in column (2) of Schedule I shall be made by selection (direct recruitment) through the Regional Commission in the manner as specified in rule 7. Rule 4. Names of post, qualification and age. – (1) The name of the post, and its qualification shall, subject to rule 5, be such as specified respectively in columns (2) and (3) of Schedule I: Provided that a person having the desirable qualification mentioned in column (2) against the posts mentioned in Sl. Nos. 4,5 and 6 of column (1) of Schedule I shall, if qualified in written examination, get preference over the candidate, who has qualified in written examination but has no desirable qualification. …….. Rule 7. Manner of selection of Teacher. Nos. 4,5 and 6 of column (1) of Schedule I shall, if qualified in written examination, get preference over the candidate, who has qualified in written examination but has no desirable qualification. …….. Rule 7. Manner of selection of Teacher. – (1) Selection to the post of the Teacher shall be made on the basis of the results of the Regional Level Selection Test comprising written examination conducted by the Central Commission, evaluation of qualifications and personality tests of the candidates in the manner as specified in Schedule II. (2) The Central Commission may, in its discretion, fix qualifying marks, to be scored by the candidates, in written examination or in aggregate or in both and relax the qualifying marks on reasonable grounds for reasons to be recorded in writing. 8. There is no dispute that Rule 3 postulates the method of recruitment to the posts and indicates that selection/direct recruitment shall be made in the manner as specified in Rule 7. Rule 7 stipulates that such selection/direct recruitment shall be made on the basis of the results of the selection test comprising (i) written examination, (ii) evaluation of qualifications and (iii) personality test of a candidate. Hence, selection process has three components. For each of these marks are specified. None can be left out. The result under Rule 7 is the outcome of the total marks obtained in those three categories. In the instant case applying Rule 4, preference was given to the trained candidates. Accordingly 95 candidates were called for personality test. The respondent, that is the writ petitioner, not having the desirable qualification, was not called for interview. Since Rule 7 mandates that the selection to the post of teacher shall be on the basis of the result of the written examination and personality test as well as the marks obtained after evaluation of qualifications and as it is clear that the marks obtained in the personality test have to be added for the purpose of selection, the action of the authorities in not calling the respondent to interview was illegal. In view of Rule 7, applying proviso to Rule 4 and in preferring a candidate having desirable qualification was not warranted. Had marks obtained by the candidates been equal, Rule 4 would have been applicable. In that event "preference" should have been given to a candidate having "desirable qualification". In view of Rule 7, applying proviso to Rule 4 and in preferring a candidate having desirable qualification was not warranted. Had marks obtained by the candidates been equal, Rule 4 would have been applicable. In that event "preference" should have been given to a candidate having "desirable qualification". The judgment in Bibhudatta Mohanti (supra) supports the stand of the respondent, wherein it has been held "Where any rule or guideline provides preference in respect of some higher qualification, it only means that all other requirements being equal a person possessing higher qualification will be preferred. It cannot, however, be considered as the sole criterion for preference in selection and appointment" (paragraph 12). The judgment in Bibhudatta Mohanti (supra) was considered in Secretary A.P. Public Service Commission (supra) wherein it has been held "the preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when one or more of them are found equally positioned, by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour via-a-vis others in the matter of actual selection." (paragraph 10). The same view was taken in the case of Secretary (Health) Department of Health & FW v. Dr. Anita Puri: (supra) as evident from paragraph 7 thereof. The judgment in Government of AP v. P. Dilipkumar (supra), referred to in Secretary A.P Public Service Commission (supra), is not applicable as it is evident that graduate candidates did not get the qualifying marks and under the Rules the candidates having post-graduate qualification had to be given preference and Rule 4 therein was clarified by a memo. The judgment in Sher Singh (supra), dealing with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is not applicable as the facts in the case is governed by the provisions contained in the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules 2006. The judgment in Sher Singh (supra), dealing with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is not applicable as the facts in the case is governed by the provisions contained in the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules 2006. The judgment in Sunita Agarwal (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case as therein the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the writ petitioner had held that as the appellant appeared before the selection committee without any protest and having taken a chance, she was estopped by her conduct from challenging the earlier order of the Vice-Chancellor, whereas in the case in hand the right of the respondent to appear in the personality test flowed from Rule 7. 9. Therefore, for the reasons is aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the application is also dismissed. 10. No order as to costs.