ORDER : Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner has challenged the selection of Mr. H. S. Indudhara, respondent No. 5, to the post of First Division Assistant by order dated 8.2.2013, issued by the respondent No. 3, PES College of Engineering, Mandya. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had completed his Bachelor's Degree in Arts. He had also completed his Masters Degree in Kannada. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. 3. By Notification dated 21.11.2012, issued by the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 3 had invited applications for the post of First Division Assistants ('FDA- for short). Since one of the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste, since the petitioner was meritorious, he had applied for the said post. Since the petitioner had secured 82.21% in the qualifying examination, and had basic knowledge of Computers, he was entitled for interview to be held on 8.2.2013. In the interview, he was awarded 3.25 marks. However, the petitioner was unaware of the marks awarded to him in the interview. Subsequently, the petitioner was shocked to learn that respondent No. 5 had been appointed to the post of FDA. Therefore, in order to discover the truth, the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act. He was further dismayed to discover that although he had scored 82.21 + 3.25 marks, totalling 85.46%, respondent No. 5 had scored 68.21 + 12.75 totalling 80.96%. Yet the respondent No. 5 had been appointed to the post of FDA. Hence, this petition before this Court challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 to the said post. 4. Ms. Vaishali Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that according to the Government Notification dated 14.8. 2006, the selection of non-technical post is covered by the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination and Selection) (General) Rules, 2006 ('Rules of 2006- for short). According to Rule 8 (2) of the Rules of 2006, the final selection for non-technical post is to be made on the basis of merit, determined on the basis of percentage of total marks secured in the competitive examination, and the marks secured in the interview, while taking into consideration the reservation policy of the State. Thus, the basis for the merit list is the marks secured in the qualifying examination, and the marks secured in the interview by the candidates. Thus, the basis for the merit list is the marks secured in the qualifying examination, and the marks secured in the interview by the candidates. Secondly, that while the petitioner had scored a total of 85.46%, the respondent No. 5 had secured merely 80.96%. Thus, obviously the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No. 5. However, notwithstanding the petitioners merit, the respondent No. 5 has been selected for the post of FDA. Hence, the selection is illegal; it deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. H.B. Chandra-shekar, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, has pleaded that according to the Official Memorandum dated 6.2.2013, the selection for the said post is to be based entirely on the interview. Since respondent No. 5 had scored 12.75 marks in the interview, and the petitioner has scored merely 3.25 marks in the interview, therefore, the respondent No. 3 was justified in appointing respondent No. 5 to the said post. Secondly, the Rules of 2006 are inapplicable to the present case. Therefore, the petitioner's reliance on these Rules is misplaced. 6. In rejoinder, Ms. Vaishali Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that according to the proceedings of the Non-Teaching Staff Selection Committee, held on 8.2.2013, the Committee itself had relied upon the Rules of 2006. Therefore, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 is unjustified in claiming that the Rules of 2006 are inapplicable to the present case. 7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Mahesh, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5, submits that according to Rule 9 of the Rules of 2006, while appointing a candidate, his suitability and physical fitness has to be considered. Since the suitability is adjudged in an interview, and since respondent No. 5 had better marks in the interview than the petitioner, therefore, the respondent No. 3 was justified in appointing respondent No. 5 to the said post. Therefore, both Mr. H.B. Chandrashekar, and Mr. S. Mahesh have supported the impugned appointment order. 8. A bare perusal of the proceedings of the Non-Teaching Staff Selection Committee (Annexure-E) clearly reveals that, according to the Principal of the PES College of Engineering, respondent No. 3, the Committee had relied upon the Government Order dated 14.8.2006, which refers to Rules of 2006. H.B. Chandrashekar, and Mr. S. Mahesh have supported the impugned appointment order. 8. A bare perusal of the proceedings of the Non-Teaching Staff Selection Committee (Annexure-E) clearly reveals that, according to the Principal of the PES College of Engineering, respondent No. 3, the Committee had relied upon the Government Order dated 14.8.2006, which refers to Rules of 2006. Since the Committee itself has relied upon the Rules of 2006, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is unjustified in claiming that the Rules of 2006 are inapplicable to the present selection. 9. Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 2006 is as under : 8. Final selection list of candidates.- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) In respect of non-technical posts : The commission shall prepare a final selection list of candidates eligible for appointment on the basis of merit determined on the basis of percentage of total marks secured in the competitive examination and the marks secured in the interview and taking into consideration the reservation policy of the State. According to the said provision, the merit is to be determined on the basis of the percentage of total marks secured in the qualifying examination plus the marks secured in the interview. 10. Although the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has tried to rely on the Official Memorandum dated 6.2.2013 to buttress his plea that the selection is to be based entirely on the interview, but the said submission is unacceptable. Because, firstly the Official Memorandum cannot be permitted to violate the requirement of Rules of 2006. Since Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 2006 clearly prescribe the basis for the determination of the merit, the Official Memorandum dated 6.2.2013 cannot be permitted to violate Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 2006. Secondly, the tenor of the entire Official Memorandum is that Mr. B. Venkataswamy, Administrative Officer, is the only person who is nominated, and Mr. Anand Poojari, Joint Director (Administration) is excluded from the Selection Committee. Therefore, the tenor of the Official Memorandum dated 6.2.2013 is being misinterpreted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Hence, the Official Memorandum does not come to the rescue of respondent No. 3. 11. B. Venkataswamy, Administrative Officer, is the only person who is nominated, and Mr. Anand Poojari, Joint Director (Administration) is excluded from the Selection Committee. Therefore, the tenor of the Official Memorandum dated 6.2.2013 is being misinterpreted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Hence, the Official Memorandum does not come to the rescue of respondent No. 3. 11. Repeatedly, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has harped on the fact that since respondent No. 5 has performed better in the interview than the petitioner, therefore, respondent No. 3 is justified in appointing respondent No. 5 on the post of FDA. However, this plea is belied by the requirement of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules of 2006. Moreover, in catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already opined that interviews cannot be permitted to override the marks obtained in a qualifying examination. For, at times, the holding of an interview is merely a subterfuge for showing favouritism to certain candidates. Keeping in mind the abuse of the interview process, Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 2006 clearly stipulates that the merit has to be based on the qualifying examination marks plus the marks obtained in the interview. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is not justified in claiming that the marks of the qualifying examination can be ignored, and the marks of the interview have to be preferred. 12. Even the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 is untenable. Although Rule 9 of the Rules of 2006 does prescribe that the suitability and the physical fitness of a candidate has to be considered while appointing a candidate, but even then Rule 9 of the Rules of 2006 does not overshadow the requirements of Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 2006. The suitability of a candidate can be examined during the interview. But, by no stretch of imagination does Rule 9 of the Rules of 2006 prescribe that the interview score should be given more preference over the total marks secured by a candidate through his qualifying examination and his interview. Therefore, the word ' suitability- used in Rule 9 of the Rules of 2006 cannot be interpreted in the manner proposed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner has scored 85.46%, whereas the respondent No. 5 has scored merely 80.96%. Therefore, the word ' suitability- used in Rule 9 of the Rules of 2006 cannot be interpreted in the manner proposed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner has scored 85.46%, whereas the respondent No. 5 has scored merely 80.96%. Therefore, obviously the petitioner is more meritorious than the petitioner. To permit respondent No. 3 to appoint respondent No. 5 to the FDA post, is to permit respondent No. 3 to violate Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 2006. 14. For the reasons stated above, the appointment order dated 8.2.2013 issued to Mr. H. S. Indudhara, respondent No. 5, is hereby set aside. The respondent No. 3 is directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of FDA, if the petitioner satisfies all the other eligibility and suitability criteria for appointment to such a post. The Writ Petition is, hereby, allowed. No order as to costs.