1. The brief fact of the case is that the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notice which was published in news paper in the first week of August, 2001 notifying that the selections to be conducted in all the district of the State for filling up Group 'C' posts in different department. The aforesaid notice was followed by an advertisement dated 29.8.2001 issued by the District Magistrate, Moradabad specifying the vacant posts to be filled up on the basis of such selection in the district Moradabad. The copy of advertisement has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The advertisement so notified for district Moradabad indicates that number of posts of Junior clerk/Typist/Junior Assistant and Stenographers are to be filled up in different offices of the State Government. The petitioner being fully eligible and qualified to the post has applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner belongs to the General category and had applied as such. The petitioner was allocated a Roll No. 5213422 for appearing in the written examination scheduled to be held on 7.10.2001. The result of written examination was declared and the petitioner was shown as having been qualified in the written examination. This information has been given by the office of District Magistrate, Moradabad vide letter dated 10th December, 2001 whereby the petitioner has been communicated that he has been found eligible to appear in typing test/Stenography test and secured 379 ranks in the merit list. By the aforesaid letter he has been told that by 18th December, 2001 he has to submit his option on a prescribed format and he has to appear in the typing test/stenography test on 22.12.2001 at I.T.I., Kanth Road, Moradabad. The aforesaid communication letter has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 2. It is further stated that on 20.12.2001 the petitioner has submitted an application before the District Magistrate, Moradabad intimating that the petitioner had applied for both the post of Junior clerk/typist as well as Stenographer making request that the petitioner be permitted to appear in the typing test for the post of junior clerk and stenography for the post of stenographer. A true copy of the aforesaid application of the petitioner dated 20.12.2001 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the application so submitted by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, he was permitted to participate in both the test i.e. in typewriting test for the post of junior clerk/typist as well as in the stenography test for the post of stenographer held on 22.12.2001. It is further stated that the petitioner has failed to qualify the stenography test, however he qualified the typing test having secured typing speed of 31.4. w.p.m. and at the end of typing test held on 22.12.2001 he was intimated as having been selected for the post of junior clerk/typist. Before appearing in the aforesaid test the petitioner had also been required to fill up an option form indicating his preferential option for several departments and accordingly the petitioner had submitted an option form on 18.12.2001. A true copy of the aforesaid form filled up by the petitioner has also been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. A perusal of which would demonstrate that the petitioner has given his first preference for the post of junior clerk/typist in marketing department i.e. in the office of Regional Food Controller. It is stated that as a result of first phase of typing test/stenography test the appointment orders were issued to some of the candidates on 22.12.2001. In making such appointments, one Sri Som Pal son of Mohan Lal who was allotted Roll No. 52005337 on the post of junior clerk/typist has also been appointed. According to the petitioner Sri Som Pal had also appeared in both the tests i.e. the stenography test as well as in typewriting test but he was appointed as junior clerk/typist by an appointment order dated 21.12.2001. In pursuance there to he had joined his post in the month of December, 2001 and continuously functioning and discharging his duties on the aforesaid post, whereas despite the fact that the petitioner had been declared qualified in the typewriting test held on 22.12.2001 no order of appointment has been issued to him. 11. An analysis of Rule 6 (6) a, b and c and the situations contemplated by the rules reveals certain shortcomings and infirmities in the rules. In a situation where candidates to be selected for any post for which type writing or shorthand and type writing has been prescribed as an essential qualification for them there would be seventy percent of total marks of selection in the written examination and twenty percent marks is liable to be allocated to only those candidates who have attained minimum speed prescribed for such type writing or shorthand and type writing test, meaning thereby that those candidates who could not attain minimum speed prescribed for such type writing or shorthand and type writing, no marks can be allocated to them in the typewriting or shorthand typewriting test. For them only seventy percent of total marks in written examination is allocable. If they are candidates of the category of retrenched employee, ten percent of total marks of examination is also admissible as prescribed under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6. Although such category of candidates are entitled to be considered for other posts in which shorthand and type writing or type writing test is not required but for them since the written examination carry only seventy percent of total marks, therefore, while assessing their comparative merit with other category of candidates who have not applied for such a post in which type writing test or shorthand and type writing test as an essential qualification and for them in the written examination there would be ninety percent of total marks of selection, the cases of former category of candidates are bound to be prejudiced and such a situation would be detrimental to the interest of such candidates though they are eligible for other posts and may have applied for all the posts for which selection is being done. Thus to that extent Clause (c) of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and does not withstands to the reasons and test of anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.