- (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the respondents have fixed 40% of the marks for interview, which is an arbitrary action for the selection process for the post of Lecturer and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) I have heard learned counsels appearing for the respondents, who have submitted that this dispute has already been decided by this Court in more than half a dozen similarly situated writ petitions by long speaking orders. It is further submitted by learned counsels for the respondents that as per Section 57 (2)(b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, written test is not required to be taken for the selection of the candidates for the post of Lecturer and, therefore, interview has been fixed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and 60% of the marks have been allotted to the educational qualifications and educational achievements etc. and remaining 40% of the marks have been allotted to the performance of the candidates in a oral interview and, therefore, oral interview is being taken by the Committee, appointed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Learned counsels for the respondents have also submitted that in the writ petitions bearing W.P.(S) No. 6179 of 2008 vide order dated 4th November, 2009, W.P.(S) No. 6251 of 2008 vide order dated 9th October, 2009, W.P.(C) No. 881 of 2008 with W.P.(C) No. 1069 of 2008 vide order dated 21st July, 2009, W.P.(C) No. 270 of 2008 vide order dated 20th March, 2009 and in W.P.(S) No. 904 of 2008 vide order dated 25th August, 2009, it has been held by this Court that the allotment of 40% of the marks for the oral interview for the selection of a candidate for the post of Lecturer is not an arbitrary action and the same has been held as a valid one and, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the dispute involved in this petition and also looking to the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, it appears that the action of fixing 40% of the marks for the interview for the selection of a candidate for the post of Lecturer is not an arbitrary action at all especially as per Section 57 (2)(b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, no written test is required to be taken. Thus, 40% of the marks have been fixed for viva -voce test and remaining 60% of marks have been allotted to the educational qualifications and educational achievements of the candidates. The bifurcation of the marks, therefore, cannot be labelled as an arbitrary action. It has been held by this Court in a writ petition bearing W.P (C) No. 881 of 2008 with W.P. (C) No. 1069 of 2008 vide order dated 21st July, 2009 in paragraph 3 as under: - "3. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case especially Section 57 (2) (b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 and looking to the public advertisement dated 31st January, 2007 as well as looking to the publication in the daily newspaper on 16th March, 2007 and also looking to the several judgments referred in the decision rendered by this Court dated 20th March, 2009 in W.P. (C) No. 270 of 2008, there is no procedural irregularity or illegality in the selection process of the candidates for the post of Lecturers. Allocation of marks for viva -voce test can not be labelled as an arbitrary, capricious or malafide because there is no written test held in the present case because it is not required statutorily under Section 57 of the Act, 2000. When the Lecturers are to be appointed, their educational qualifications etc. are to be properly appreciated and, therefore, 60% marks are allotted to the educational qualification, and the educational achievements, but, it may happen that some candidates might have studied a part of the syllabus. Likewise part of a new syllabus might not have studied at all by those candidates. Therefore, to check their knowledge about the newly added syllabus, 40% of the marks have been allotted to the viva -voce test, can not be said to be an arbitrary action, on the contrary, there is a valid and convincing logic for fixing 40% marks for viva -voce test. Whenever the Jharkhand Public Service Commission is selecting a candidate, all care ought to have been taken by the Commission so that a candidate is having a full knowledge of the latest syllabus of a particular faculty, may be selected, otherwise, if 100% are to be allotted for educational qualification, there are all chances for selection of those candidates, who have never studied the new syllabus, but, have secured higher marks during their graduation or post graduation study and they will be selected, but, that is not a correct or healthy method of a selection and, therefore, rightly the weight age has been given by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to evaluate a candidate from the view point of knowledge of latest syllabus."
(3.) IN view of this decision and in view of the other decisions also as stated hereinabove, there is no substance is this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;