- (1.) With the consent of the parties, hearing of this matter has been done through video conferencing.
(2.) The instant intra-court appeal has been filed against the order/judgment dated 03.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5528 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with by passing any positive direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif), pursuant to Advertisement No.13/2008 published by the respondent no.2.
(3.) The brief facts of the case which requires to be enumerated, reads hereunder as: The respondent no.2 had come out with an advertisement being Advertisement No.13/2008 for appointment to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif). The appellant being eligible in all respect, applied for his 'appointment to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif), in pursuant to the said advertisement. The appellant was found eligible to participate in the selection process and as such, Admit Card was issued in the preliminary examination in which he appeared and found qualified, subsequent thereto, he appeared in the mains examination in which also he was found qualified and as such, he was called in the viva voce (interview). The appellant appeared in the interview which held on 16.07.2010 in the office of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi but when the result was published, the name of the appellant was not found in the final selection list. The petitioner not being qualified, made an application under the Right to Information Act to know about his marks and accordingly, due information was furnished vide letter dated 25.06.2013 from which the appellant came to know that he has obtained 82 marks in the mains and 8 marks in interview i.e. total 90 marks. The appellant also came to know that the final cut off marks to the category to which petitioner belongs is 90 marks (unreserved). The grievance of the writ petitioner-appellant is that, although he obtained total 90 marks but due to less marks secured in the interview i.e. 8 marks he has been found to be disqualified. According to the writ petitioner-appellant, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission is not empowered to fix more than 12.2% of the total marks for the interview but the respondents had fixed maximum marks in the interview as 20 and 10 marks as qualifying, which was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and hence, the writ petitioner-appellant approached the writ Court by invoking power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which has been dismissed, on the ground that the marks of the mains as also the interview have been reflected in the advertisement and the writ petitioner-appellant knowing about the same had participated in the process of selection and when he became unsuccessful, he cannot turn around and challenge the decision of the authority in fixing the qualifying marks in the interview.;