JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. 1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By the impugned order dated 28.11.2019, the petitioner has been denied appointment as Assistant Teacher on the footing that he had obtained lower marks than last selected candidate in all the six districts for which he opted in the application form. 3. Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has higher marks than other candidates in different districts and further, a number of vacancies are existing in different districts. The petitioner can be appointed against the said vacancies. 4. Shri K Shahi, learned counsel for the BSA submits that the petitioner cannot seek appointment beyond his options. The relevant rule pertaining to filling up the options is extracted hereunder: 5. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule shows that the aforesaid requirement for filling up options in different is a directory in nature. At best the petitioner is required to fill up one option. The candidates cannot be non-suited for failing to fill 75 options pertaining to all the districts. The petitioner is entitled to be considered by the respondent even for appointment in other districts which he had not opted for in the application form. 6. The assertion of the petitioner that his marks obtained by him are higher than the cut-off merit for other districts has not been disputed by the respondents. The petitioner’s case is liable to be considered for appointment in other districts as per merit. 7. While determining the directory character of the preferences in recruitment process the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Bilash Ram vs. State of Bihar and others , 1986 SCC OnLine Pat 268 has been held as under: "11. So, the ordinary meaning of "preference" is to give priority to one over another. It would mean that by giving preference to one the person shows his liking for it over the others. This does not mean that by giving preference or priority to one, he shows his dislike for others and opts against them. So, if the appellant gave preference to some services/posts, it cannot be said that he has withdrawn his candidature for the rest of the services/ posts. This does not mean that by giving preference or priority to one, he shows his dislike for others and opts against them. So, if the appellant gave preference to some services/posts, it cannot be said that he has withdrawn his candidature for the rest of the services/ posts. Any contrary inference drawn on the basis of preference list would be opposed to the principle of natural justice. If one says that he prefers a five-roomed house, it cannot be interpreted to mean that he would not accept a four-roomed house if no five- roomed house is made available to him. The term "preference" always indicates that the person has a choice to make. It cannot be interpreted to mean that if he is not offered the thing for which he has shown his preference, he will not accept the other things offered to him for which also he was otherwise eligible and for which also he was candidate from the very beginning. If the applicant had no choice left with him, as he was not found suitable for the services/posts for which he had shown preference, it cannot be said that he has abandoned his claim for the rest of the services, as it cannot be presumed that he would prefer to remain unemployed, if he did not get services/posts of his choice." 8. The aforesaid judgment was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. Probir Ghosh and Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 250 . 9. Similarly in the case of Union of India vs. M.V.V.S. Murthy , 1987 Supp SCC 371 , the Supreme Court has held as under: "5. Indisputably the respondent confined his preference only to the Indian Administrative Service. The note appearing below Column 22 in the application form reads thus: In respect of the services/posts not covered by the entries above, it will be assumed that you have an equal preference for those services/ posts. You will therefore, be considered for any of those services if you cannot be allotted to the services of your preference." The real meaning of this note appears to us to be that if preferences given by the candidate are not available to be accommodated on the basis of the results of the candidate's preference in the selection examination, instead of being rejected he would be available to be considered for the other service. As already pointed out, the Civil Services Examination is a combined examination for several services and when a vacancy is not available within the field of the candidate's choice, it is open to the Central Government to consider the candidate for other services. The effect of this note is not that preferences given by a candidate securing a place lower to the respondent would not be entitled to his preference because he has been placed below the respondent in ranking. If ranking alone is to be the test, preferences would have no meaning. On the other hand, the procedure that preferences are acceptable with reference to the position in the final list till vacancies in the services preferred are exhausted is the most logical one and meets the requirements of the scheme. Merely because the respondent was placed at the 280th place in the merit list and someone else placed at No. 291 was being offered the Indian Police Service in keeping with his preference, would not give the respondent any cause of action.” 10. The said judgments are applicable to the facts of this case and shall govern its fate. In this manner the entitlement of the petitioner for being considered for appointment in districts he had not opted for is established. 11. The writ petition is allowed. 12. The matter is remitted to respondent no.3, who shall process the claim of the petitioner for appointment in other districts without being influenced by the fact that he had only given six options in the application form.