- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that the petitioner has not selected by the Interviewing Committee of Jharkhand Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer in the subject of physics in pursuance of the public advertisement dated 31st January, 2007, which is annexed at Annexure -5 to the memo of the present petition. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is duly eligible and qualified for being appointed as Lecturer of physics. The petitioner is even on today teaching the subject of physics in college. The Interviewing Committee has not properly appreciated the qualifications and teaching experience of the present petitioner. The petitioner is a doctorate degree holder. Unreasonable excessive marks have been fixed for interview process and, therefore also, the selection process by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner ought to have been selected by the respondents for the post of Lecturer of physics.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, who has vehemently submitted that the dispute or the grievances ventilated by the petitioner is no res integra. This dispute has already been decided by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 270 of 2008 vide order dated 20th March, 2009 and the detailed reason order has been passed by this Court about the fixation of marks in the oral interview as well as about the qualifications and the process of interview. Secondly, in W.P. (C) No. 881 of 2008 with W.P. (C) No. 1069 of 2008, this Court has taken decision vide order dated 21st July, 2009 and the similarly situated petitions have been dismissed and it has been upheld by this Court that action taken by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission is true, correct, legal and in consonance with law, even otherwise also subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Interviewing Committee cannot be judicially reviewed by this Court in exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The allotment of marks is 60% for educational qualifications of the candidates and 40% for oral interview, as there is no written test of the candidates. For knowing the latest knowledge of candidates and such other qualities of the candidates, 40% marks have been fixed for oral interview. Even as per Section 57 (2) (b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Act has been followed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Thus, there is no illegality in the process of selection and the subjective satisfaction of the Interviewing Committee, cannot be challenged in the Court of law. All that depends upon the performance of the candidates in comparison with other candidates and looking to the comparative performance before the Interviewing Committee, the candidates are being selected for the appointment and in the selection process, the petitioner has appeared in the interview and is not selected by the Interviewing Committee of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: - (i) In pursuance of public advertisement dated 31st January. 2007 (Annexure -5 to the memo of the petition), the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in the subject of physics. She was called for oral interview. Interviewing Committee took the interview of the petitioner and of such other several similarly situated candidates. Petitioner's performance is comparatively poorer than the other selected candidates. (ii) It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is even on today delivering lectures in the subject of physics. She is Ph.D. degree holder in physics and she ought to have been selected by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. This high pitch argument is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reasons that: (a) merely because the petitioner is teaching in college is not a guarantee for her selection by the Interviewing Committee; (b) the petitioner being a Ph.D. degree holder is never exempted from interview process; (c) as per Section 57 (2) (b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, there is no need of written test, to be taken of the candidates and, therefore, oral interview is a correct and legal procedure, adopted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, for selection of the candidates for the post of Lecturers in college; (d) Ph.D. degree in a particular subject and, therefore, mathematically, the petitioner ought to have been selected, is not a law. It appears that the petitioner is evaluating the Interviewing Committee as if, Interviewing Committee is not fit for selection of the petitioner. Selection of candidate by Interviewing Committee is based upon the subjective satisfaction. Process of selection of the candidates is complex phenomena. Educational qualification is not the sole criteria, much less, a guarantee of the selection. A candidate is going to be appointed as a Lecturer, will have to deal with youth. This capacity can be evaluated only in oral interview. This additional quality will play an important role in selection. How, he will behave in class when the students are asking any cornered questions. Interviewing Committee is not only checking the educational expertise knowledge, but, also temperament of a candidate has to be checked. A teacher must be of a temperate temperament. If any candidate is losing his temperament before the Interviewing Committee, such a candidate may not be selected, even if, he or she is possessing a very high educational qualification. Thus, there may be several reasons for not selecting a candidate. It all depends upon the subjective satisfaction of the Interviewing Committee. I therefore, refrain in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction in questioning subjective satisfaction of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission of selection of candidate for the post of Lecturer in pursuance of the public advertisement dated 31st January, 2007. (iii) The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner has already been decided by this Court in a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 270 of 2008 vide order dated 20th March, 2009 and it has been upheld by this Court that fixation of marks, i.e. 60% for educational qualification and 40% for oral interview, is not an arbitrary decision. The fixation of marks is absolutely based upon the aforesaid logic and is full of rationale. If 100% marks are fixed for educational qualification, then suitable candidates may not be appointed as a Teacher or a Lecturer. Combination of several good qualities over and above good educational qualification is required for lecture like good temperament, promptness in reply and explanation in the class room as well as the good administrator too and the like. Therefore, high pitch contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Ph.D. degree holder and she is teaching even on today, is of no help to the petitioner, because, this cannot be the sole criteria for the selection. (iv) It also appears that the contentions, raised by the counsel for the petitioner, are also referred in the decisions given by this Court in the writ petitions bearing W.P. (C) No. 881 of 2008 with W.P. (C) No. 1069 of 2008 vide order dated 21st July, 2009. There is no illegality, in selection process, by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.
(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I see no reason to quash and set aside the selection process or selection or both, for the post of Lecturer, by the respondents. There is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;