Virender Singh, C.J. - (1.) APPELLANT -writ petitioner (for short petitioner), after being not shortlisted for considering his candidature for interview for the post of District Fishery Officer -cum Chief Executive Officer/District Fishery Officer/Lecturer (General Category) on account of obtaining 60.44% marks only as compared to the last candidate who was shortlisted for interview after having obtained 62.60% marks, approached this Court vide W.P.S. No. 6432 of 2014 taking the plea that Jharkhand Public Service Commission (J.P.S.C) has not followed the procedure as contained in Rule 5(3)(a) of Rules of Procedure, 2002 inasmuch as the marks obtained by the petitioner in graduation has not been calculated for the purposes of shortlisting. Learned writ court, finding no substance in the case of the petitioner, ultimately dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.
(2.) HEARD Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. Rashmi Kumar appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall appearing for the J.P.S.C. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and the writ court record. While reiterating the case of the petitioner as put forth before the learned writ court, Mr. V.P. Singh learned Senior Advocate once again put entire stress on Rule 5(3)(a) of Rules of Procedure, 2002 and submitted that in terms of the said Rule, J.P.S.C. has to calculate the percentage of marks obtained in each examination from matriculation upto the level of minimum qualification. He submitted that although the petitioner is not B.Sc. (Zoology) or Bachelor in Fisheries Science from any recognized University (B.F.Sc.), but after completing his graduation, he obtained the post graduate degree in Zoology (Fisheries). Therefore, in the case of the petitioner, the minimum qualification is post graduate degree in Zoology which he obtained after completing graduation. In this eventuality, for the purpose of considering his case for shortlisting, JPSC should have calculated the percentage of the marks obtained by him in graduation also.
(3.) WE are not in agreement with the submissions advanced by Mr. Singh.;