D.G.R.PATNAIK,J. - (1.) I .A. No. 789 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioners with a payer for an early date of hearing, since this case has been already admitted It is also informed that two other analogous cases also containing the similar prayers, filed by the petitioners vide W.P. (C) No. 640 of 2008 and W.P. (C) No. 726 of 2008, both of which had already been admitted and still are pending. Considering the prayer and the urgency shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this case has been taken up for final hearing. I.A. stands disposed of. 1. The petitioners being an Association of holders of Ph. D. Degrees, have prayed in this writ application for quashing the panel and the result (Annexure -5) of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (J.P.S.C.), published in the newspapers on 15.1.2008, containing recommendations for appointment of lecturers in different universities of Jharkhand.
(2.) THE main ground of challenge to the impugned panel and the results, is that it has been prepared in violation of the terms of the Advertisement and in violation of the University Grants Commission norms and without consulting the U.G.C. and in violation of the various orders, passed by the Supreme Court as also by this Court in the matter of fixing the minimum qualifying marks for interview. Terming the impugned panel and the results as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and violative of the principles of service jurisprudence, the petitioners, besides praying for quashing the impugned panel and the results, have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to hold a fresh interview for appointment of lecturers in different universities and colleges of Jharkhand. The case of the petitioners is that consequent upon the identification of vacancies in the posts of lecturers in the various subjects in different colleges under the various universities within the State of Jharkhand, the respondent -J.P.S.C. had published an advertisement dated 31st January, 2007 in the local newspaper, inviting applications from eligible candidates, declaring the eligibility criteria therein. In response to the advertisement dated 31st January, 2007, (Annexure - 2), several applications were received including the applications of the members of the Petitioner's Association. After concluding the Tests including the viva - voce test, the J.P.S.C. published the results of the examinations alongwith a panel containing the recommendations for appointment of the successful candidates to the posts of lecturers. The petitioners constitute a group of such candidates, who were not declared successful at the Tests. Their main grievance is that by fixing minimum 40 marks for interview and 60 marks for academic qualifications and failure to attach marks for academic qualifications including the Ph D. Degrees, the respondents -J.P.S.C. has acted arbitrarily and by way of discrimination, has deprived the members of the petitioner -Association from their opportunity of appointment to the posts of Lecturers. The petitioner Association has also challenged the entire selection process on the ground that it is in violation of the U.G.C. norms and contrary to the directives given by this Court in several cases and also by the Supreme Court in several judgments.
(3.) ELABORATING the grounds of challenge against the impugned panel and the results, Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent -J.P.S.C. is only a recruiting agency and it was a mandatory obligation on its part to consult the U.G.C. and follow the U.G.C. regulations, guidelines and orders in the matter of fixing the eligibility criteria and the percentage of marks etc. for the interview and for finalizing the process of selection. Instead, the respondent -J.P.S.C. appears to have taken a stand that since it has been entrusted by the State Government with the work of conducting the selection and recruitment, it was for the J.P.S.C. to make the rules as may be applicable for the selection process and that in laying down the rules, it has followed the rules adopted by the Jharkhand State. Referring to the cut -off marks of 40 out of 100 for the viva - voce tests, learned Counsel argues that fixation of 40 per cent marks for viva -voce tests, is arbitrary and discriminatory. To buttress his arguments, learned Counsel refers in this context to the various judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Hariyana reported in 1986 SCC (L&S) 88; Mohindar Sen Garg v. State of Punjab reported in 1991 ACC (L&S) 555; Ashok v. State of Karnataka reported in 1992 SCC (L&S) 38; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mojib Sehravardi reported in 1981 SCC (L&S) 258. Learned counsel explains that in each of the aforesaid judgments, the Supreme Court has held that fixing of the minimum higher percentage marks for interview at an unreasonably high level, would amount to discrimination as it would tend to eliminate prospective candidates, who are otherwise qualified for the posts. Learned counsel argues further that fixing of different cut -off marks for different subjects, as has been made by the J.P.S.C, is arbitrary and discriminatory and is against the spirit of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Juhi Gupta v. University Grants Commission and Ors. passed in WP (S) No. 876 of 2007. Learned counsel further argues that the limit of 40 marks for viva -voce tests was not stated and declared in the Advertisement (Annexure -2) and the petitioners could know about the same only after the commencement of the interview held in the month of March, 2007 and therefore the petitioners had no opportunity to raise this issue earlier. Further grounds of attack, as advanced on behalf of the petitioners, is that the concerned Universities of Jharkhand and the State Government have not correctly calculated the sanctioned vacant posts in between the period 1997 to 2006. Learned Counsel explains that as was admitted by the respondent -State in a previous writ application vide WP (S) No. 1059 of 2006, even by a rough estimate, there are as many as about 3000 vacancies, whereas, the respondent -J.P.S.C. has held the interview for only 874 posts and the respondents have thereby deprived several eligible candidates of their rightful opportunities for employment.;