D.P. MOHAPATRA, CJ.

These four Special Appeals involve common questis of fact and law. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for parties they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. The core question, which falls for determination in the case, is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pro visions in the Uttar Pradesh Rural Development (Gram Sewak) Service, Rule, 1980 (for short the Rules) the Commissioner, Agriculture Production and Rural Development, Uttar Pradesh (for short the Commissioner) is com petent/has power to draw up a list of candidates for undergoing training ignoring the list of selected candidates prepared by the District Selection Committees The answer to this question depends on interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Rules with a view to ascertain the intent r purpose of the Rules.

3. The factual matrix of the case, over which there is no dispute, may be stated thus. In pursuance of the advertisements issued by the District Selection Committees of the concerned districts of Banda, Budaun and Bijnor inviting applications for appointment to the post of Gram Sewaks the appellants submitted applications. They appeared in the written examination, physical endurance test and viva voce test held by the concerned district Selection Committees and were included in the select lists prepared by the Committees. The District Selection Committees while sending the lists of selected candidates to the Commissioner also sent a list of other applicants, who were unsuccessful in the tests held for selec tion. The Commissioner ignored the select lists sent by the District Selection Committees, considered all the applicants of different districts and drew up a list of candidates to be sent for training. The appellants were not included in the list prepared by the Commissioner. The case of the appellants is that under the provisions of the Rules no power is vested in the Commis sioner to prepare a list of candidates for undergoing training and he was bound to follow the lists received from the respective District Selection Committee for the purpose. It is the further case of the appellants that the Commissioner is vested with the power to draw up a list of candidates for appointment after completion of the training course. Therefore, submit the appellants, the procedure followed by the Commissioner for selecting candi dates the undergo training and denying them such facility is contrary to the provisions of the Rules and as such illegal and incompetent. The appellants filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Commissioner. The learned Single Judge by the judgment rendered on 27-2-1996 dismissed the writ peti tions holding, inter alia, that Rule 15 (4) of the Rules vests power in the Commissioner to select candidates for undergoing training and the action taken by him is supported by the said provision of the Rules. The

learned single Judge further held that under Rule 16 (1) power is also vested in the Commissioner to prepare a list of candidates for appointment on successful completion of the training course. According to the appellants on a fair reading of the relevant provisions of the Rules, particularly Rules 14, 15 and 16, it is clear that the role to be played by the Commissioner is only at the stage of completion of the training when recommendation is to be sent for appointment by the competent authorities of the concerned districts and not at the stage of sending the selected candidates for undergoing train ing. At that stage the Commissioner is mandated to abide by follow the lists repared by the District Selection Committees. The writ petitions having been dismissed, the appellants have filed these Special Appeals assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge.

4. The case of the respondents, as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, is that since a common training programme is prescribed for all the candidates of the entire State and the Selection for appointment is to be made by the Commissioner for the entire State, it is reasonable and proper to interpret the provisions of Rule 15 (4) as has been done by the learned single Judge, to mean that the Commissioner is vested with the power to make his own selection of candidates from the lists of candidates selected and non-selected sent by the District Selection Committee accord ing to merit and in that process if candidate or candidates selected by a particular District Selection Committee are excluded from the list prepared by the Commissioner for the reason that they could not compete on merits with the candidates of other districts then they cannot be allowed to make a grievance of their non-selection. This interpretation, as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, should t> e preferred because the intent and purpose of the selection process is to pick up the most meritorious candidates.

5. On a first look at the matter, the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel appears to be attractive. No doubt, the primary purpose of any examination is to find out the most meritorious candidates but the answer to the question that falls for consideration in the case, in our view depends on a fair reading and interpretation of the provision of the Rules, particularly Rules 14, 15 and 16. The principle is well settled that if the Rules prescribe a certain procedure for selecting candidates for training and the language of the Rule is clear and unambiguous, then it has to be inter preted according to the plain meaning of the provisions of the Rules and no Court is permitted to add to it or delete from the Rule with the avowed purpose of achieving laudable object of selecting the most merito rious candidate. It is for the framers of the Rule to prescribe such pro cedure for selection of candidates which they consider proper and neces sary for achieving the intent and purpose of the selection. If, however, on a reading of the relevant provisions of the Rule the meaning is not clear and there is some ambiguity regarding the intent and purpose, then it may, in the circumstances be open to the Court to give an interpretation in accord with the intention of the Rule and the purpose sought to be achieved by it.

6. In the above back drop the question formulated earlier is to be considered. Before proceeding further, we would like to notice some provi sions of the Rules relevant for determination of the question formulated. Under Rule 3 (a) "appointing authority" means the Additional District Magistrate (Development)/district Development Officer. Under clause (c) of Rule 3 "commissioner" means the Commissioner, Agricultural Produc tion and Rural Development, Uttar Pradesh and includes Commissioner, Rural Development. Under clause (h) of the said Rule "service" is defined to mean the Uttar Pradesh Rural Development (Gram Sewak) Service. Rule 5 makes provision regarding sources of recruitment. It lays down that recruitment to the post of Gram Sewak shall be made by district recruit ment on the result of a competitive examination and the prescribed training if any. Under the proviso to Rule 5 provision is made for reservation of 25 per cent of vacancies for being filled up from amongst the permanent Panchyat Sewaks on the basis of the said competitive examination and a separate list in order of merit as determined on the basis of the competitive examination has to be prepared in respect of Gram Sewaks to be appointed in accordance with the proviso. Rules 6 makes provision regarding reserva tion for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories in accor dance with the orders of the Government in force at the time of recruitment. Part V of the Rules contains provisions regarding procedure for recruitment and training. Rules 14, 15 and 16, which ire included in this part, are quoted hereunder :

"14. Determination of vacancies.-The Commissioner shall determine and notify to the Employment Exchange the number of vacancies to be filled, in each district, during the course of the year and also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories under Rule 6. The vacancies may also be notified in the newspapers in circulation in the concerned districts and be published otherwise also.

15. Procedure for direct recruitment.- (i) The selection of candidates for the purpose of training shall be made district with through a Selection Committee comprising-

(i) The District Magistrate of his nominee,

(ii) An Officer of member of the Zila Parishad.

(iii) The District Development Officer/additional District Magistrate (Development).

Note.-The Chairman of the Committee shall be the District Magis trate and in his absence the Additional District Magistrate (Development)/district Development Officer shall preside.

(2) The Selection Committee shall scrutinize the applications and require the eligible candidates to appear in a written test and physical test. The syllabus for the written test and standard for physical test is given in Appendix B. The Departmental candidates shall be exempted from the physical test in assessing the merits of the candidates.

(3) After the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test have been tabulated, the Selection Committee shall having regard to the need for securing due representation of the candi dates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories in accordance with Rule 6, call only those candidates for interview and physical test who obtain a minimum of 50 per cent marks (4u per cent in case of Scheduled Caste candi dates). Among other things the Committee shall have regard for the rural background his physical and general suitability for appointment to the service as well as other points indicated in Appendix "b". The marks allotted in the physical test and interview will be added to the marks obtained in the written examination.

(4) The Committee shall then draw up separate lists of the candi dates selected (a) for direct recruitment under Rule 5; and (b) for recruitment from amongst the permanent Panchayat Sewak, under proviso to Rule 5 and arrange their names in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate and forward it to the Commissioner in the proforrna prescribed in Appendix "c" of these rules subject to Rules 6 and 16 the Commissioner will select the candidates who stand highest in the order of preference in the list received from the Committee of the District.

16. (0 The selected candidates shall have to undergo two years training at a place as the Government from time to time specify at their own expenses before being substantively appointed.

(ii) During the period of training they will be given a monthly stipend for Rs. 50 per month as such stipend as the Govern ment may from time to time determine.

(iii) The candidates shall execute a bond undertaking to serve under Government of the State for throe years as Gram Sewak.

The Commissioner shall prepare a merit list of the candidates on completion of training on the basis of aggregate of marks secured by them in the training and send the requisite number of names to the concerned appointing authority. "

Part VI contains provisions regarding appointment, probation, confirmation and seniority. Rule 17, which deal with appointment reads as follows ;-

"17. Appointment.- (1) On the occurrence of substantive vacan cies, the appointing authority shall make appointment by taking the names of candidates in the order which they stand in the list prepared under Rule 16.

(2) If more than one order of appointment are issued in respect

of any one selection, a combined order shall also be issued, mentioning *he names of the persons in order of seniority as determined in the election or, as the case may be, as it stood in the cadre from which they are promoted.

(3) The appointing authority may make appointments in temporary or officiating capacity also from the list prepared under sub-rule (1). If no candidate borne on these lists is available, he may make appointments in such vacancy from amongst persons eligible for appointment under these rules, such appointments shall not last for a period exceeding one year or beyond the next selection under these rules, whichever be earlier. "

A combined reading of the revisions in Rules 14, 15 and 16 makes it clear that the scheme of things appears to be that the Commissioner shall determine and notify to the employment exchange the number of vacancies to be filled in each district during the course of the year and also the number of vacancies to be reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories under Rule 6 ; the selection of candidates for training shall be made district wise through a Selection comprising (i) the District Magistrate or his nominee, (ii) an Officer or Member of the Zila Parishad and (iii) the District Development Officer/ Additional District Magistrate (Development), the selection committee will proceed to select candidates in the manner prescribed under sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 15 by holding written test, physical test and interview and after the marks allotted in the

physical test and interview are added to the marks obtained in the written examination the Committee shall then draw up separate list of candidates selected for direct recruitment under Rule 5 and for recruitment from amongst the Panehayat Sewak under the proviso to Rule 5 and arrange their names in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. Then the Committee is to send the said list to the Com missioner in the proforma prescribed in Appendix C of the Rules and the Commissioner will select the candidates who stand highest in the order of preference in the list received from the Committee of the District.

7. The selection for training, as Rule 15 (6) provides is made subject to Rules 6 and 16. Rule 16 mandates that the Commissioner shall prepare a merit list of candidates on completion of training on the basis of the aggregate marks secured by them in the training and send the requisite number of names to the concerned appointing authority. It is clear that the scheme under the rules is to make selection at two stages, one for purpose of training and the other for the purpose of appointment after training. The duty of selection, at the first stage, is vested in the Selection Committee, at the latter stage is vested in the Commissioner. As noted earlier, this position is clear from a fair reading of the provisions of Rules 14, 15 and 16 which, as we see, are expressed in plain, clear and unambigous language. The learned Standing Counsel has not been able to draw our attention to any provision in the rules which either expressly or even by necessary implication can be said to vest the power in the Commissioner to prepare his own list of candidates for training for a particular district or for the entire state. On the other hand specific provision in sub-rule (4) of the Rule 15 clearly lays down that he is bound to select the candidates, who stand highest in the order of reference in the list received from the Committee of the District. If the intention, as submitted by the Standing Counsel, was to facilitate the Commissioner to draw up a State wise list, then sub-rule (4) would not have been couched in the language will select the candidates who stand highest in the order of preference in the list received from the Committee of the District. (emphasis supplied). Learned Standing Counsel has also not been able to place his fingers on any provision of the rules which mandates the District Selection Committee to send list of unsuccessful candidates, who are not included in the select list to the Commissioner. Going by the interpretation of the rules made by the learned Standing Counsel, which has been accepted by the learned single Judge, the resultant position would be that the entire exercise of selection of candidates, for training by the respective District Selection Committees will be rendered irrelevant and the provision in Rule 15 in that regard will be rendered otiose. Such an interpretation, which renders a part of the rule irrelevant/unnecessary, should be avoided.

8. From the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, the resultant position that emerges is that the action of the Commissioner in prepar ing the list of candidates for training by-passing/ignoring the list received by him from different District Selection Committees (Budaun, Banda and Bijnor) was contrary to the rules and hence incompetent and invalid. Consequently it follows that the denial of opportunity of training to the appellants on the basis of such illegal list prepared by the Commis sioner is unsustainable.

9. The question that remains to be considered is as to what is the appropriate order that can be passed in the case The selection of the appellants was made by the respective Selection Committees in 1993 ; in the meantime almost three years have elapsed. The posts, which were advertised, have been filled up by other candidates. In the circumstances, we consider it apt and proper to direct the respondents, particularly the Commissioner, Rural Development, U. P. Lucknow to send the appellants for training in the next batch of trainees and consider their case for appointment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules.

10. The Special Appeals are allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27-2-1996 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. There will be no order for costs. Petition allowed.