ORDER : NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the action of the respondent-Department of Personnel in ignoring her name in the list of candidates invited for appearing in the Medical Examination pursuant to the recommendations made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for selection in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Joint Competitive Examination, 2012. In the final merit list declared by the R.P.S.C., the petitioners' roll number finds place in the category of SC Women. The petitioner has set up a case that her name was recommended to the respondent-Department of Personnel but while issuing the list of probables on 20.08.2015, the respondents have ignored the candidature of the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she ranks at Serial No. 22 in the merit list of SC Women category. One Richa Garg ranks at Serial No. 23. She has got less marks than the petitioner but has been invited for the medical examination, whereas, the petitioner has been ignored. 2. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. As per the said additional affidavit, the petitioner had filled only 03 preferences. She was at Serial No. 1904 in the general merit and therefore, was not found eligible in the 03 preferences given by her. Hence, she was not called for the medical examination. Richa Garg, on the other side, who was at Serial No. 1951 in the merit list, gave preferences for 08 State Services and 07 Subordinate Services i.e. total 15 preferences. She was found eligible in accordance with her preference. Accordingly, she was called for the medical examination. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that preferences given by the candidates have only to be considered towards a privilege granted while considering the service in which the candidate is to be absorbed. As per him, such candidates covered in merit whose names are recommended by the Commission to the State have to be offered appointment on a suitable post as per his/her merit. The petitioner cannot be denied appointment just because she gave only 03 preferences. While filling the merit, the candidate is only indicating his preferential post and no concrete conclusion can be drawn from the preferences because the select list is to be governed by the merit position of the candidate. The petitioner cannot be denied appointment just because she gave only 03 preferences. While filling the merit, the candidate is only indicating his preferential post and no concrete conclusion can be drawn from the preferences because the select list is to be governed by the merit position of the candidate. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. 4. Rule 17 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 reads as under:- "17. Recommendation of the Commission:- (1) The Commission shall prepare for each Service, a list of candidates arranged in order of merit of the candidates as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. If two or more of such candidates obtained equal marks in the aggregate the Commission shall arrange their names in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the service ; Provided that the candidate(s) belonging to the Other Backward Classes/Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes, who get placement in the merit lists as a result of special concession given to them in terms of "age or such other concession granted by the Government excluding the concession in fees" shall be counted against the reserved vacancies determined for the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes/Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes irrespective of the marks obtained by them. (2) The Commission, while giving weightage to the preference for the posts in the different services expressed by a candidate in his/her application, may recommend him/her for appointment to any post in any such service for which it considers him suitable. (3) The list compiled under this rule shall be immediately sent to the Government and also be published for general information." 5. Thus, every candidate is required to fill up the application form wherein a chart giving the details of preferences in the State and Subordinate Services is annexed. The petitioner gave only 03 preferences i.e. Rajasthan State Service, Rajasthan Police Service and Rajasthan Account Service and did not fill up rest of the columns of the preferences in the State Services as well as Subordinate Services. Applying the above rule in its' letter and spirit, the petitioner could not be given the preference on account of her placement in the merit list. 6. Applying the above rule in its' letter and spirit, the petitioner could not be given the preference on account of her placement in the merit list. 6. The issue with respect to the preference came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Coordinator, PTET, Jai Narain Vyas University v. Kamalpreet Kaur (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1431/2014) decided on 14.11.2014. The petitioner in the said case was ignored for admission in the B.Ed. Course in the college of her choice as she had confined her choices for only four colleges for admission, which were near to her place of residence. Whereas, the respondent in the said case, who was lesser in merit, got admission in a college for which the choice had been expressed by the petitioner. While setting aside the order of the learned Single Bench granting admission to the petitioner as per her choice vis-a-vis respondent, the Division Bench of this Court held in Para 4 and 5 as under:- "4. We entirely agree with the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the admissions have to be made strictly in accordance with the Scheme of Admission and in which the choice of the colleges plays a very important role. The entire scheme of counselling will be frustrated in case, the candidates, having opted for limited choice, approach the Court for admission in any of the colleges, where the seats are lying vacant. It was submitted that the counselling was confined to only one round and thereafter, in the second, third and fourth rounds, only allotment of seats was made for those, who were left out but those admissions were given strictly in accordance with the scheme of counselling, in which the choice of the colleges of the candidates, had an important role to play. 5. We also agree with learned counsel appearing for the appellant that in case, the directions are issued by the Court to grant admissions to the students in accordance with their merit on any of the available seats in the colleges offering B.Ed. Course in the State of Rajasthan, there will be utter confusion and chaos. In such case, thousands of students will approach Court for vacant seats, irrespective of the choice given by them, which is not permitted under the Scheme of Counselling." 7. Course in the State of Rajasthan, there will be utter confusion and chaos. In such case, thousands of students will approach Court for vacant seats, irrespective of the choice given by them, which is not permitted under the Scheme of Counselling." 7. Applying the test in the present case, in case the averments raised by the petitioner are accepted, there would be total chaos and confusion and the respondent authorities would never be able to complete the process of selection. Every candidate is required to fill their forms as per the instructions. The failure to do so will disentitle them to lay their claim after the process is complete and the posts have been distributed among the candidates as per their merit and preference and vis-a-vis those, who had filled their forms according to the instructions. 8. In view of the above, this Court would not have interfered in the circumstances but for the fact that two posts in the Rajasthan Tehsildar Services are still lying vacant. Moreover, this Court while passing the interim Order dated 04.09.2015 had directed the respondents to assess the petitioners' suitability as per her merit and reserve one post in the service where the petitioner qualifies. In pursuance to the said interim order, the respondents have kept one post vacant in the Rajasthan Cooperative Subordinate Services instead of keeping the post reserved in the service where the petitioner qualified in terms of the interim order passed on 04.09.2015 as per her merit. It is not disputed by the respondents that in case, the merit is applied, the petitioner is eligible to be appointed against the post of Rajasthan Tehsildar Services. In any case, admittedly 02 posts are still vacant, although, in the general category in Rajasthan Tehsildar Services. Looking to the fact that the petitioner is otherwise a meritorious candidate and the post is also lying vacant in the services to which she qualified, it would be highly unjust and unfair to allow the said post to go unfilled and deprive a candidate who is otherwise in merit only on account of an error of not filling up more preferences beyond 03 filled by her. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant appointment to the petitioner in the Rajasthan Tehsildar Services as per her merit against the post which is still lying vacant. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant appointment to the petitioner in the Rajasthan Tehsildar Services as per her merit against the post which is still lying vacant. The said appointment shall be given w.e.f. the date person less meritorious from that of the petitioner has been given appointment i.e. 17.02.2016. However, the said period will be counted only for the purpose of notional benefit. The needful shall be done within one month from today.