JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents, Mr. J.C Lalnunsanga, learned Standing Counsel Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC) appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. A.R Malhotra learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6. 2. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the case is that the petitioner is a Graduate in Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) who obtained the Degree in the year 2011 and he is registered under the Mizoram State Medical Counsel. The petitioner was engaged as Epidemiologist/Medical Officer under the National Programme for Prevention and Control Of Cancer, Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases and Stroke (NPCDCS) by of Office of the Mission Director, National Health Mission vide engagement dated 12.02.2016 (Annexure-3) initially for a period of 1 (one) year subject to termination/extension of service based on performance. The service of the petitioner was thereafter continued and vide Office Order dated 24.10.2019 (Annexure-4), he was transferred from Kolasib to Thingsai Public Health Centre (PHC), Thingsai. Since then, he is working at Thingsai PHC. On 18.11.2020 (Annexure-5), the MPSC floated Advertisement No. 6/2020-2021 for filling up of 5 posts in the Grade-III of the Mizoram Health Service (MHS). One of the condition stipulated in the advertisement for the purpose of the present writ petition is that preference is to be given for those who have rendered prior rural areas service. The petitioner responded to the advertisement and underwent the selection process. However, when the results were declared by the MPSC vide Notification dated 22.06.2021 (Annexure-7), the petitioner found himself to be at Serial No. 1 in the panel list. Aggrieved, he filed an RTI application seeking information from the MPSC as to whether preference was given to those who rendered services in rural areas apart from other queries. Before a reply was made to his application, the Health & Family Welfare Department issued the impugned Notification dated 16.07.2021 (Annexure-9) appointing 5 (five) Doctors including the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to the Grade-III post of the MHS. Before a reply was made to his application, the Health & Family Welfare Department issued the impugned Notification dated 16.07.2021 (Annexure-9) appointing 5 (five) Doctors including the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to the Grade-III post of the MHS. Thereafter, vide Communication dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure-10), the petitioner was given the information he sought for through RTI wherein it was stated that there was no requirement for applying the preference clause as the relevant Rules provided that other things being equal, preference will be given to those persons having rural area experience of at least 1 (one) year. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application before the Controller of the Examination of the MPSC on 23.08.2021 (Annexure-II) requesting for re-evaluation of his marks as he was not given weightage for the services rendered by him in rural areas as provided under Regulation 4(3) of the Mizoram Health Service (Competitive Examination) Regulations, 2012 (Regulation of 2012). In response to his application, the petitioner was informed vide Communication dated 01.09.2021 that the recruitment process was conducted properly and that the same did not require any change or modification. To support the case of the petitioner, the Mizoram Government Doctors Association through its President also submitted a representation to the respondent No. 1 on 15.09.2021 (Annexure-13) requesting re-evaluation of the appointment process of Grade-III of the MHS. However, as nothing materialized, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the Mizoram Health Service Rules, 2009 (Rules of 2009) recruitment to the service in Grade-III is 100% by way of Direct Recruitment which is to be conducted by the MPSC in accordance with regulation notified for the purpose. He submits that Rule 10(4) importantly provides that other things being equal, preference will be given to those persons having rural area experience of at least (1) one year. The learned counsel further submits that Schedule-III at Serial No. 1 which is for recruitment to the Grade-III post of MHS also provides that preference is to be given for those who have rendered prior rural areas service amongst others. 4. Mr. The learned counsel further submits that Schedule-III at Serial No. 1 which is for recruitment to the Grade-III post of MHS also provides that preference is to be given for those who have rendered prior rural areas service amongst others. 4. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel submits that in terms of Rule 9(2) of Rules of 2009, the Regulations of 2012 was framed and Regulation 4(3) provides that candidates having service experience as Medical Officers in rural areas of Mizoram for 1 (one) year and above either on contract or appointment on Regulation 3(f) or Regulation 4(c) of MPSC (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, under Govt. of Mizoram or various programmes under Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India, implemented by the Govt. of Mizoram shall be given preference with weightage of 5% of the total marks, as provided in the Schedule-I of the Regulations of 2012. Considering the marks allotted towards written examination and interview at Schedule-I of the Regulations of 2012, the petitioner should have been awarded 45 marks for his experience in rural areas. He also submits that if any of the other candidates had rural area experience, they would also be equally entitled to be given the marks. As such marks were not allotted by the MPSC while conducting the selection, the impugned results declared vide Notification dated 22.06.2021 and the order of appointment of the private respondents in particular vide Notification dated 16.07.2021 should be set aside and quashed. 5. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel submits that both the relevant provisions of the Rules of 2009 and the Regulations of 2012 are to be harmoniously read and constructed to give true meaning to the intent and purpose of the preference given to those posted in rural areas. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:- Sharif Ud-Din vs. Abdul Gani Lone (1980) 1 SCC 403 . State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Raghubir Dayal, (1995) 1 SCC 133 . State of Kerala vs. M.K Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil & Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 435 . 6. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents on 17.01.2022 submits that Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2009 provides that the Commission shall conduct written examination in accordance with the Regulations notified for the purpose. 6. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents on 17.01.2022 submits that Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2009 provides that the Commission shall conduct written examination in accordance with the Regulations notified for the purpose. The Rule does not contemplate granting of weightage for preferential qualification at the stage of selection process but only at the time of appointment to the service in case an eventuality arises as contemplated under Rule 10(4) of the Rules of 2009. The learned Government Advocate submits that since the Regulations of 2012 is framed in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2009, the Rules will prevail over the Regulations in case there is any conflict. She further submits that merit has to be the sole criteria for appointment and only in the event when there is a tie amongst the participating candidates, preference will have to be given to those who have experience in rural areas posting. In support of her submission, the learned Government Advocate relies upon the following authorities:- Union of India & Ors. vs. Dileep Kumar Singh, (2015) 4 SCC 421 . Amnol Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 424 . State of U.P and Anr. vs. Om Prakash & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 474 . Ratul Deka vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2021 (3) GLT 772. Secretary, A.P Public Service Commission vs. Y.V.V.R Srinivasulu & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 341 . M.V Thimmaiah & Ors. vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 119 . 7. Mr. J.C Lalnunsanga, learned Standing Counsel for the MPSC by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4 on 23.11.2021 also submits that Regulation 4 of the Regulations of 2012 only lays down the conditions of eligibility to sit in the examination and not the conditions of selection and therefore, Regulation 4(3) cannot be the basis for awarding rural service mark weightage. There is no provision in the Rules of 2009 prescribing any particular method for giving preference. However, it is only when the candidates have scored equal marks that preference can be given to those persons having rural area experience in terms of Rule 10(4) of Rules of 2009. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition has no merit and should be dismissed. However, it is only when the candidates have scored equal marks that preference can be given to those persons having rural area experience in terms of Rule 10(4) of Rules of 2009. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition has no merit and should be dismissed. In support of his submission, the learned Standing Counsel relies upon the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 70. 8. Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 submits that he adopts the arguments made by the learned counsels for the State respondents and the MPSC. He submits that if there are any inconsistencies between the provisions of the Rules and the schedule to the Rules or the Regulations framed in accordance with the Rules, the provisions of the Rules has to prevail. He submits that it is only in the event that when all things are equal, the preference for experience in rural areas can be given and not otherwise. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following authorities:- Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 789 . Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2019) 11 SCC 1 9. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 10. The question for determination as can be seen is as to whether marks for rural area experience is to be given to those Doctors who have such experience of at least 1 (one) year in terms of the relevant provisions under the Rules of 2009 and the Regulations of 2012. The admitted position is that none of the Doctors who participated in the selection process were awarded marks for having experience in rural areas. Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2009 provides that the MPSC shall conduct written examinations in accordance with the Regulations notified for the purpose. Rule 10(4) provides that other things being equal, preference will be given to those persons having rural area experience of at least 1 (one) year. Schedule-III to the Rules of 2009 at Serial No. 1 also provides that preference is to be given for those who have rendered prior rural area services. Rule 10(4) provides that other things being equal, preference will be given to those persons having rural area experience of at least 1 (one) year. Schedule-III to the Rules of 2009 at Serial No. 1 also provides that preference is to be given for those who have rendered prior rural area services. In terms of Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2009, the Regulations of 2012 has been framed and Regulation 4 deals with conditions of eligibility. As per Regulation 4(iii), candidates having rural areas posting as stipulated therein shall be given preference with weightage of 5% of the total marks as provided in Schedule-I of the Regulations of 2012. However, the fact remains that as per Rule 10(4) of the Rules of 2009, such preference can be given when other things are equal. The admitted position is that both the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 in the written examination have scored more than the petitioner and the total marks scored by them even after interview is higher than that of the petitioner. As can be seen, the marks scored by the petitioner and the private respondents are not equal and the latter have scored more than the petitioner. Insofar as clause-4 of the Regulations of 2012 is concerned, the same only provides for conditions of eligibility and a conjoined reading of this provision along with the relevant provisions and the Rules of 2009 nowhere mandates that the preferential marks has to be given in any event. In fact, only when there is a tie or the performance of the candidates are equal that such preference can be given. 11. In order to appreciate the word “shall” in clause-4(3) of the Regulations of 2012, Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Sharif Ud-Din (supra) & Raghubir Dayal (supra) in which the Apex Court held that the fact that the statute uses the word “shall” while laying down a duty is not conclusive on the question whether it is a mandatory or directory provision. In order to find out, the true character of the legislation, the Court has to ascertain the object which the provision of law in question has to sub-serve and its design and the context in which it is enacted. If the object of a law is to be defeated by non-compliance with it, it has to be regarded as mandatory. In order to find out, the true character of the legislation, the Court has to ascertain the object which the provision of law in question has to sub-serve and its design and the context in which it is enacted. If the object of a law is to be defeated by non-compliance with it, it has to be regarded as mandatory. But when a provision of law relates to the performance of any public duty and the invalidation of any act done in disregard of that provision causes serious prejudice to those for whose benefit it is enacted and at the same time, who have no control over the performance of the duty, such provision should be treated as a directory one. In the present case, it may however be seen that the word “shall” has been used in the Regulations of 2012 in relation to the preference with weightage of 5% of the total marks for experience as Medical Officer in rural areas. The Rules of 2009 at Rule 10(4) provides that other things being equal, preference will be given to those persons having rural area experience for at least one year. The Regulations of 2012 has been framed in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2009 and therefore, it cannot override or prevail over the provisions of the Rules of 2009. Therefore, Regulations 4(3) has to be read and understood to mean that only when the candidates are on equal footing or at par, preference will be given to those persons having rural area experience as further specified in the Regulations of 2012. 12. The learned counsel Mr. Lalfakawma has further relied upon the case of M.K Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil & Ors. (supra) to contend that even though an Act is wrong and lacking in jurisdiction but the same will subsist and remain fully effective unless and until it is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction. In other words, until the validity of such Act is challenged, its legality is preserved. According to the learned counsel since the Rules of 2009 and the Regulations of 2012 has not been challenged, the relevant provisions which permit giving of a preference, those Doctors having rural area posting and experience has to be applied. In other words, until the validity of such Act is challenged, its legality is preserved. According to the learned counsel since the Rules of 2009 and the Regulations of 2012 has not been challenged, the relevant provisions which permit giving of a preference, those Doctors having rural area posting and experience has to be applied. This argument in my considered view cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, it has already been held herein above that the relevant provisions of the Rules cannot be over written by the Regulations which in fact has been framed in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2009. It may also be stated herein that in order to arrive at this finding, support has been taken from the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad (supra) and Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. (supra). 13. Thus, having held that the Rules of 2009 would prevail over the Regulations of 2012, the other authorities relied upon by the parties need not be referred to. Upon due appreciation of the matter in its entirety, I do not find merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost.