1. - These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd May, 1997 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the action of the appellant in not considering the preferences indicated by the respondent in her application which she was required to submit after declaration of the result of the written examination was allowed. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition directed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission') to consider of the case of the respondent in the light of Rule 15(3) of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Further, a direction was issued to the effect that if the merit of the respondent was above the candidate who had been offered appointment, she be considered for such speciality.Briefly, the facts are that the Commission issued an advertisement for recruitment to the Rajasthan State Civil Services viz. Rajasthan Administrative Service, Rajasthan Cooperative Service and Rajasthan Police Service etc. The respondent applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. She qualified in the preliminary examination which was held in August, 1991 and her result was declared on 23rd February, 1992. By a communication dated 16th March, 1992, the respondent was asked to appear for the interview on 8th April, 1992. It is significant to note here that through this communication the respondent was required to fill in a form. She was further required to take the original form alongwith her at the time of interview and submit it to the concerned authorities. The respondent was specifically instructed not to send the application form by post. In this second form the respondent changed her preferences. In the original form submitted by the respondent in pursuance of the advertisement she was required to give certain preferences for the Service she wanted to join. The second form to be submitted at the time of interview also contained a column regarding preferences for the Service. The respondent changed her preferences. On account of this change in the preferences the respondent was ultimately not selected and this action of the appellant was challenged by way of writ petition.

2. Thus the main issue for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent could change her preferences in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant has mainly relied on Rule 10(4) of the Rules and on the basis of the said provision it is argued that a candidate is allowed to change his/her preferences only within 30 days of the date of declaration of the result of the written examination and not beyond that time limit. Since the respondent failed to comply with the said rule inasmuch as she did not apply for change of preference within 30 days, she was not entitled to change her preference as originally given. The respondent challenged the Rule containing limitation of 30 days. However, without pronouncing on the validity of Rule 10(4) the learned Single Judge granted relief to the respondent primarily on the basis of facts on record.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has stressed that a column regarding preferences is contained in the original application form to be filled in in pursuance of the advertisement. In the second application form which the candidates are required to fill in after declaration of result of the written examination again there is a column where the candidates have to indicate their preferences. There is no stipulation in the second application form that the candidates must stick to the preferences given in the original form nor does the form contain any indication about the 30 days' limitation contained in Rule 10(4). Therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the respondent was led to believe that by requiring her to indicate her preferences all over a