Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Petitioners, in this bunch of writ petitions, are aggrieved by their non-selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Statistical Officer as they have failed to secure minimum marks in the interview. The jurisdiction of Public Service Commission to fix minimum marks for qualifying interview is primarily questioned in all the writ petitions. All the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Writ Petition No.14179 of 2019 (Nagesh Chandra Kesharwani and 26 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 11 Others) is taken as the lead case.
(2.) Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the Commission') issued advertisement No.4 of 2014-15 dated 17th March, 2015 initiating recruitment to large number of vacancies occurring in different departments of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Controversy in this bunch of petitions, however, is confined to 373 posts of Assistant Statistical Officer (general recruitment) in Economic and Statistic Division, State Planning Institution U.P. A total number of 7291 applications were received by the Commission against 373 advertised posts of Assistant Statistical Officer. The recruitment exercise consisted of a screening test followed by interview. 1261 candidates could qualify screening test and were accordingly called for interview. Out of those 1261 candidates only 1133 candidates could submit their educational and other eligibility documents to the Commission. A committee was constituted to examine eligibility of candidates who had cleared screening test. The committee found that only 340 candidates were eligible for being called to face interview. 302 candidates out of those 340 actually appeared to face interview.
(3.) The determination of eligibility by the Committee constituted for the purpose came to be questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.13091 of 2019 (Shrawan Kumar And 5 Others Vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission). This Court while dismissing the writ petitions vide judgment dated 21.8.2019 clarified that eligibility of the candidate would have to be restricted to the recruitment rules and the advertisement. The Commission also undertook to scrupulously comply with the provisions of the applicable rules and the advertisement while determining eligibility of candidates. Para 13 and 14 of the judgment in Shrawan Kumar (supra) is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter:- "13. The thrust of the submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the process of scrutinising the application was undertaken on the basis of the three member committee report and that persons who do not qualify in terms of second essential qualification or are otherwise not eligible in view of the stand taken by the Commission have infact been allowed to participate. This contention raised on behalf of the petitioners need not cause any difficulty inasmuch as having taken a categorical stand before this Court that the Commission shall restrict consideration to candidature of those persons who have either obtained 'O' level diploma in computer awarded by the DOEACC Society or atleast one year diploma in Computer Science from any recognised University/ Institution established by law, the consideration would have to be limited to that category of applicants alone. The Commission is expected to scrutinise this aspect and to ensure that only such candidates are allowed to take part in the interview who possess requisite qualification in accordance with the advertisement and the applicable service Rules of 2012. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, would not justify any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 14. In view of the discussions made above and in light of the stand taken by the Commission, as also the statement of their senior counsel that Commission shall scrupulously comply with it, this writ petition is consigned to records.";