Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Shankar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 August, 2022
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.299 of 2022
----
1. Ravi Shankar Singh, S/o Ramjee Singh, Age 24 Yrs, R/o
H.No.77, Muhalla Kamaltola, Sahebganj, P.O. + PS-
Sahebganj, Dist-Sahebganj, Jharkhand-816109.
2. Vijay Minz, S/o Ranthu Oraon Minz, Age 31 Yrs, R/o
Village-Sero, P.O.-Sero, P.S. Narkopi, Sero, Dist-Ranchi,
Jharkhand-835325.
3. Vivek Kumar Marandi, S/o Suklal Marandi, Age 26 Yrs,
R/o P.O. - Dighi, Village - Dondiya, P.S. - Dondiya,
Sarayahat, Dist - Dumka, Jharkhand-814151.
4. Prem Prakash Tudu, S/O Samuel Tudu, Age 27 Yrs, R/o
Khagra, P.O. Khagra, Kankjol, Maheshpur Raj, P.S. -
Maheshpur, Dist - Pakur, Jharkhand-816106.
5. Kumar Gautam, S/O Anand Kumar Baraik, Age 30 Yrs,
R/o P.O. - Karra, Merle, P.S. - Karra, Dist-Khunti,
Jharkhand-835209.
6. Jitendra Samad, S/O Jagadish Samad, Age 31 Yrs, Near
Middle School, Jadavdih, Chakradharpur, P.O. -
Chakradharpur, P.S. - Chakradharpur, Dist-Paschimi
Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833102.
7. Shashi Hembrom, S/o Kumud Hembrom, Age 29 Yrs, R/o
Manda Tand, Morabadi, P.O.-Morabadi, P.s.-Bariatu, Dist-
Ranchi, Jharkhand-834008.
8. Binod Kumar Hembram, S/o Lal Mohan Hembram, Age 31
Yrs, R/o House No.22, Bankati, P.O.-Rajnagar, P.S.-
Rajnagar, Dist-Seraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand-831002.
9. Shashank Shekhar, S/o Gandur Bhagat, Age 30 Yrs, R/o
Banhora, Ranka Toli, Hehal, P.O. - Hehal, P.S. - Pundag,
Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834005.
10. Sonu Stanley Tudu, S/O Suniram Tudu, Age 31 Yrs, R/o
Village-Karipahari, P.O.-Kariphari, P.S. Gopikander,
Karipahari, Dist-Dumka, Jharkhand-816117.
11. Krishna Mohan Soren, S/O Mahashy Soren, Age 29 Yrs,
R/o Vill Tilabad, P.O. Sundarpahari, P.S. - Sundarpahari,
Paharpur, Dist-Godda, Jharkhand-814156.
12. Subhash Kumar Manjhi, S/O Chhotka Manjhi, Age 39
Yrs, R/o Darhabera, Near School, P.O. - Kander, P.S. -
-2-
Mahuwatand, Darhabera, I.E. Gomia, Dist-Bokaro,
Jharkhand-829112.
13. Sachin Jamuda, S/o Banshidhar Jamuda, Age 32 UYrs,
R/o Bada Khankra, P.O. Madhupur, P.S.-Seraikela,
Madhupur, Sini, Dist-Seraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand-
833220.
14. Basant Hembrom, S/o Munish Ram Manjhi, Age 31 Yrs,
R/o Urimari, Hesabera, Gossain Balia, P.O. - Gossain Balia,
P.S.-Barkagaon, Dist-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand-825311.
15. Sajeet Kerketta, S/o Binod Kerketta, Age 32 Yrs, R/o
Senha, Barwa Toli, P.O. - Senha, P.S. - Senha, Dist-
Lohardaga, Jharkhand-835302.
16. Manish Kumar Bhagat, S/o Bige Bhagat, Age 29 Yrs, R/o
Lupunga, P.O. Mandar, P.S.-Itki Taluk, Lupunga, Dist-
Ranchi, Jharkhand-835214.
17. Sundar Mohan Mardi, S/o Sona Ram Mardi, Age 33 Yrs,
R/o H.No.20, Sarangposi, P.O.-Rajnagar, P.S.-Rajnagar, Dist-
Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand-831002.
18. Mukesh Kumar Murmu, S/o Bhutnath Murmu, Age 34
Yrs, R/o Vill-Hikimaral, P.O.-Hirimaral, P.S.-Nirsha, Dist-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828205.
19. Ritesh Ranjan, S/O Lakhan Oraon, C/o Umlen Sanga,
Age 32 Yrs, R/o Bithaniya Tola, Dibadih, Near Over-bridge,
P.O.-Doranda H.O., P.S. -Doranda, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand
834002.
20. Alok Ajit Lakra, aged about 39 Yrs, S/o David Lakra, P.O.
- Katu, P.S. - Ratu, VTC:Belangi Patra Toli, Dist-Ranchi,
Jharkhand 835222.
21. Nitesh Baxla, S/o Anthony B Baxla, Age 30 Yrs, R/o Don
Bosco School, Jan Priya Colony, Khora Toli, Kokar, Ranchi,
P.O.-Ranchi G.P.O., P.S.-Sadar, Dist - Ranchi, Jharkhand-
834001.
22. Bindeshwar Oraon, S/o Bahura Oraon, Age 36 Yrs, R/o
H. No.116, Sisai, Arko Mahua Toli, P.O.-Arko, P.S.-Sisai,
Dist-Gumla, Jharkhand-835324.
23. Jyotish Kumar Oraon, S/O Late Pusha Oraon, Age 35
Yrs, R/o Near Matri Prerna Eye Hospital, Sunil Kujur, Gitil
Kocha, Kokar, P.S.-Sadar, P.O.-Bariatu, Bariatu, Dist-
-3-
Ranchi, Jharkhand-834009.
24. Sumit Oraon, S/O Ghura Oraon, Age 32 Yrs., R/o Sirkha
Toli, P.O.-Khijri, P.S.-Namkum, Namkum, Dist-Ranchi,
Jharkhand-834010.
... ... Appellants / Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004.
2. State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi-834004.
3. Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan,
P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004.
4. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its
Chairman, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi-834001.
5. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi-834001.
6. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service
Commission, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi-
834001.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
7. Dukhu Ram Soren, S/O Dibakar Soren, Age-31 Yrs, R/o
Baramara, P.O.-Baramara, Near Primary School, P.S.-
Baramara, Dist-Purbi Singhbhum, Jharkhand-832301.
8. Pawandeep Deogam, S/O Late Harish Chandra Deogam,
Age 30 Yrs, R/o Mahulsai Road, behind Poddar Service
Station, P.O.-Chaibasa, P.S. Muffasil, Mahulsai, Dist-
Pashchimi Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201.
9. Joy Jamani Biruli, S/O Mihir Chandra Biruli, Age 27 yrs,
R/o Gaytrika Campus, Opp. D.I.G. Office, Tasar Farm Area,
Matkamhatu, Chaibasa, P.O.-Chaibasa, P.S.-Muffasil, Dist-
West Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201.
10. Saurav Pratap, S/O Pramod Kumar, Age 29 Yrs, R/o 493,
Suresh Nagar, Ward Commissioner House, P.O.-Hazaribagh,
P.S.-Hazaribagh, Sadar-Hazaribagh, Dist-Hazaribagh,
Jharkhand-825301.
-4-
11. Sunny Kumar Singh, S/o Deepak Kumar Singh, Age 27
Yrs, Near Crown Public School, Swarna Jayanti Nagar, New
Madhukam, P.O. - Hehal, P.S.-Pundag, Dist-Ranchi,
Jharkhand-834005.
12. Amit Kumar Hansda, S/o Abilal Hansda, Age 35 Yrs, R/o
Vill-Nawdiha, P.O.-Nawdiha, P.S.-Nawdiha, Dist-Godda,
Jharkhand-814153.
13. Anand Kumar, S/o Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Age 27 Yrs,
R/o Ward No.19, Dewan Baba Gali, Karnibag, Deoghar, P.O.-
Deoghar, P.S.-Deoghar, Dist-Deoghar, Jharkhand-814112.
14. Rajkishor Pandey, S/o Anil Pandey, Age 28 yrs, R/o P.O.-
Nagnagar, P.S.-Barwadda, Panduki, Dist-Dhanbad,
Jharkhand-826004.
15. Arjun Tigga, S/o Pandey Tigga, Age 33 Yrs, R/o RIMS
Road, Gitil Kocha, Kokar, P.O.-Kokar S.O., P.S.-Sadar, Dist-
Ranchi, Jharkhand-834009.
16. Azad Daniel Bihan, S/o Gabriel Bihan, Age 34 Yrs, R/o
Baram, Tatisilawi, Mahilong, Ranchi, P.O.-Tatisilwai, P.S.
Tatisilwai, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand-835103.
17. Jimmy Jackson Purti, S/o Sudhir Purti, Age 36 Yrs, R/o
Pathal Kudwa, Master Lane, P.O.-Ranchi G.P.O., P.S.-Lower
Bazar, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001.
18. Birendra Toppo, S/O Jamuna Toppo, Age 33 Yrs, R/o
Gram-Bhandaria, P.S.-Bhandaria, P.S.-Bhandaria, New
Bhandaria, Dist-Garhwa, Jharkhand-822125.
19. Ravi Shankar Oraon, S/O Harasanath Oraon, Age 30 Yrs,
R/o Vill-Tiko Pokra Toli, P.O.-Kudu, P.S.-Kudu, Kuru, Dist-
Lohardaga, Jharkhand-835302.
20. Asif Shams S/o Mohammad Islam, age-30 years, R/o
Patra Toli, PO-RVC Kanke, PS-Kanke, Dist-Ranchi-834006,
Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioners/Proforma Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Subhashish Rasik Soren, Advocate
Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
For the JPSC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, Advocate
-5-
--------
ORAL JUDGMENT
Order No. 04 : Dated 18th August, 2022 The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 29.06.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2391 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to quash and set aside the result of Mains (written) Examination of Jharkhand Combined Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination (Advertisement No. 05/2019) published on 19.5.2022.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-
The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short JPSC) has come out with an advertisement being Advertisement No. 05/2019, in month of October, 2019 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil-542 posts) and Assistant Engineer (Mechanical-95 posts), Total-637 posts in Road Construction Department, Water Resources Department and Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand.-6-
The examination, as per the advertisement, was to be conducted in three parts i.e. Preliminary Examination, Main (Written) Examination and Interview (Personality Test).
The petitioners, in terms of the aforesaid advertisement, filled up the application forms for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). They participated in the preliminary examination held on 19.01.2020 in which they were declared to be successful. Thereafter, they appeared in the Main (written) Examination, however, not declared successful. The petitioners came to know that only 1.8 times results against the advertised post were published instead of 2.5 times, which according to the writ petitioners, is mandatory as per Clause-3(ix) of the resolution, as contained in memo no.- 13026 dated 27.11.2012 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand.
The writ petitioners, after being declared unsuccessful in the Main (written) examination, approached the JPSC raising their grievances, however, nothing was done.
The writ petition was filed wherein the grounds have been taken that as per Clause 11(B)(2) of the Advertisement No. 05/2019, the Main (Written) Examination has to be conducted in two sections i.e. (1) Objective question paper and (2) Conventional (Subjective) question paper. In the first section i.e., Objective question paper, there are three -7- papers carrying 200 marks each (total 600 marks) and in the Subjective paper, there are two paper carrying 200 marks each (total 400 marks). Altogether, there are five papers in the Mains Examination divided into two sections consisting of Objective and Subjective questions having 1000 marks in total. It has been mentioned in Clause 11(B)(7) of the terms of the Advertisement that the answer sheets of Section-II (Conventional) of only those candidates will be evaluated who obtain minimum qualifying marks in Section-I (Objective) of the Mains Examination.
It is the further ground that after appearing in Section-I of the Mains Examination, the petitioners were allowed to take the carbon copy of their answer sheets with them and after release of the answer key by the JPSC, the same were verified by the petitioners on which it came to light that they had obtained minimum qualifying marks in terms with the Resolution no. 13026 dated 27.11.2012 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand.
According to the writ petitioners, as per Clause 3(vi) of the said Resolution, the benefit of reservation in the Mains Examination of various competitive examinations was to be extended for Class-II posts by declaring the minimum passing/qualifying marks category wise which was later on amended vide resolution dated 12.09.2019 including -8- minimum qualifying marks for primitive tribe candidates as well. In the amended resolution dated 12.9.2019, the State Government did not declare the minimum qualifying marks for EWS category, however, for other categories the same was mentioned.
The resolution dated 27.11.2012 contains a condition as under Clause 3(ix) that minimum 2.5 times candidates of notified vacancies should be called for interview. The said provision is mandatory which needs to be strictly followed. But, the aforesaid condition has not been followed, rather, only 1.8 times candidates have been called upon, therefore, the entire selection process, being in the teeth of the condition stipulated under Clause 3(ix) of resolution dated 27.11.2012 and, as such, the result published of the main (written) examination needs to be quashed and set aside.
The JPSC has appeared and taken the plea that as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement, it is mandatory condition that the candidates who would obtain minimum qualifying marks in objective type papers, i.e., Section-I, as well as Section-II, i.e., subjective type papers, will be declared to be successful in the written (main) examination. But, save and except the EWS and ST categories, since the candidates have not secured minimum qualifying marks in both the Sections, i.e., Section-I and Section-II, and, as such, only 1.8 times of the candidates have been declared to be -9- successful who have been found to have obtained minimum qualifying marks in Section-I and Section-II.
The writ petitioners, since have not got the minimum qualifying marks as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement as under Clause 11(B)(7), therefore, the writ petitioners have been declared not successful and in view thereof, submission has been made that there is no infirmity in the process of selection and the declaration of result to the extent of 1.8 times so far as it relates to the EWS and ST categories.
The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact about the condition of having secured minimum qualifying marks as stipulated in the advertisement and since the writ petitioners have not secured minimum qualifying marks in both the Sections, i.e., Section-I and Section-II, therefore, declined to interfere with the result published of the main (written) examination, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal.
3. Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-writ petitioners, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact in right perspective that the writ petitioners, even though have qualified in Paper-I but declared to be unsuccessful in the Main (written) examination.
It has further been submitted that the State did not
- 10 -
declare the minimum qualifying marks for EWS category and, as such, it is incorrect on the part of the selecting body to take a plea that the writ petitioners have not secured the minimum qualifying marks and, as such, the aforesaid aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge, but having not been considered, therefore, serious infirmity has been committed, hence the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
4. While on the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - JPSC, has submitted that the condition contained as under Clause-3(vi) of the resolution dated 27.11.2012 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, requires securing of minimum qualifying marks.
It is the further condition that the answer-sheets of objective type papers of the Main examination as contained in Section-I would be evaluated first and evaluation of answer- sheets of subjective type papers, i.e., Section-II, of only those candidates would be evaluated who have secured minimum qualifying marks in Objective type paper, i.e., Section-I, as fixed by the Commission.
The candidates, only to the extent of 1.8 times of the vacancy in the category have secured minimum qualifying marks in both the Sections, i.e., Section-I and Section-II, and,
- 11 -
as such, only 1.8 times candidates of the vacancy under the said category have been declared to be successful in the Main examination and called for to participate in the interview.
The writ petitioners since have not got the minimum qualifying marks as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement, they have not been declared successful in the Main examination and also not been called to participate in the interview.
Therefore, the claim of the writ petitioners that 2.5 times candidates of the vacancy in the category ought to have been declared successful is not worth to be considered on the ground that the writ petitioners have not got the minimum qualifying marks.
According to the learned counsel appearing for the JPSC, the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter is correct in dismissing the writ petition and, therefore, the instant appeal may also be dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
6. The issue raised on behalf of the appellants is that as to why 1.8 times candidates of the total vacancy in EWS and ST categories have been declared successful in the Mains
- 12 -
examination to be called upon to participate in the interview instead of 2.5 times candidates of the vacancy under the EWS and the ST categories, which is the condition stipulated as under Clause 3(ix) of the resolution dated 27.11.2012, which reads hereunder as :-
"3. ¼ix½ ,slh lsokvksa@laoxksZ ds lEcU/k esa] ftuesa fyf[kr ijh{kk ds ckn vUrohZ{kk@n{krk tk¡p fu/kkZfjr gS] fyf[kr ijh{kk esa izkIrkadksa ds vk/kkj ij vUrohZ{kk ds fy, cqyk;s tkus okys mEehnokjksa dh la[;k vf/k;kfpr fjfDr;ksa ds <kbZ xquk ls lkekU;r% U;wu ugha gksuh pkfg,A lEcfU/kr lsok fu;ekofy;ksa esa rnuqdwy izko/kku iz'kklh foHkkx }kjk dj fy;k tk;sxkA"
It has been stipulated therein, as would appear from the quoted part of the condition stipulated under Clause 3(ix) of the aforesaid resolution, that the said condition is mandatory.
It further appears by going through the record and the impugned order wherein a reference of the Schedule-II of the Rules, 2016, as under Sl. No. 6(i)(v), wherein discretion has been given to JPSC to fix the qualifying marks in any or all the subjects individually or sum of marks of all the papers of written examination for declaring the result of Mains Examination after shortlisting the candidates for interview.
It further appears that on the basis of Schedule-II of the Rules, 2016, the last examination which was conducted in the year 2013, the candidates were provisionally shortlisted
- 13 -
for interview in the ratio of 1:3 which is evident from the result of the written test of Combined Assistant Engineer Recruitment Examination, 2013, as has been brought on record.
The resolution dated 27.11.2012 also stipulates that the JPSC has been conferred with the authority to select candidates who have passed the Mains examination in each subject/paper by obtaining minimum qualifying marks.
7. The examination has been conducted and the candidates who have been found to be successful in the preliminary examination, have been allowed to participate in the main (written) examination. The record suggests that in all categories, save and except EWS and ST categories, 2.5 times candidates of vacancy have been declared to be successful in the main (written) examination so as to participate in the interview. But, under the EWS and ST categories, 1.8 times candidates of the vacancy in these categories, have been declared successful and, as such, called upon to participate in the interview.
The number of candidates under the EWS and ST categories which has been reduced from 2.5 times to 1.8 times, has been questioned by the writ petitioners by filing writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No.2391 of 2022.
8. The fact about the authority of the JPSC to fix the qualifying marks in any or all the subjects of written
- 14 -
examination individually or sum of marks of all the papers as per Sl. No. 6(i)(v) of Schedule-II of Rules, 2016 is not in dispute.
Further, Clause 6 of Appendix-I of Schedule-III of Rules, 2016 provides that minimum qualifying marks of one or all the papers shall be fixed in accordance with the resolution No.13026 dated 27.11.2012 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand.
It has further been provided therein that the answer- sheets of Section-I (Objective type) will be evaluated first and answer-sheets of Section-II (subjective type) will be evaluated of only those candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks in Section-I (Objective type papers), as would appear from the condition stipulated under Clause 11(B)(7) of the Advertisement No.05/2019, which reads as hereunder :-
"11(B) 7- ijh{kk esa fdlh ,d ;k lHkh iz'u i=ksa ds fy, U;wure vgZd vad dk fu/kkZj.k dkfeZd] iz'kklfud lq/kkj rFkk jktHkk"kk foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k&13026 fnukad&27-11-2012 ,oa ladYi la[;k&7358 fnukad&12-09-2019 ds vuq:i fd;k tk;sxkA ijh{kk dh ;kstuk ds [k.M&1 ds oLrqfu"B izdkj ds iz'u i= igys tk¡ps tk;saxs rFkk ijh{kk dh ;kstuk ds [k.M&2 esa fn;s x;s ijaijkxr iz'u i= mUgha vH;fFkZ;ksa ds tk¡ps tk,saxs] ftUgksus oLrqfu"B izdkj ds iz'u i=ksa esa vk;ksx }kjk fu/kkZfjr U;wure vgZd vad izkIr dj fy;k gksA"
- 15 -
9. The fact about the condition of having secured minimum qualifying marks of Section-II of Mains examination has not been disputed by the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge.
Further, the condition stipulated in the advertisement as under Clause 11(B)(7) read with provision of Rules, 2016, providing therein that the answer-sheets of Section-II of only those candidates will be evaluated who have obtained the minimum qualifying marks in Section-I papers of Mains examination, as fixed by the Commission, has also not been disputed.
10. The Commission, in view of the provision of Rules, 2016, since has discretion to fix the minimum qualifying marks for one or all the papers, therefore, such decision has been taken by fixing the minimum qualifying marks in view of the resolution dated 27.11.2012.
11. The writ petitioners have participated under the EWS and ST categories, but, 2.5 times candidates of the total vacancies in their categories could not get minimum qualifying marks in the papers of both the Sections, i.e., Section-I and Section-II, as such, only 1.8 times candidates of the vacancy in the said categories have been selected as they got minimum qualifying marks in both Sections. However, in the rest of the categories 2.5 times candidates of the vacancy have been selected.
- 16 -
It is not in dispute that the condition stipulated under Clause 3(ix) of the resolution dated 27.11.2012 which provides that for those services/cadre wherein after written examination there is provision of interview/eligibility test, the number of candidates called for interview will not ordinarily less than 2.5 times of the vacancy. But the said condition is required to be read out with the other condition i.e., the condition stipulated under Clause-3(vi) of the resolution dated 27.11.2012 wherein provision of securing minimum qualifying marks in the papers of both Sections, i.e., Section-I and Section-II, and the JPSC, in pursuance to the conferment of power under the provision of Rules, 2016 basis upon which the decision has been taken by fixing the minimum qualifying marks is also an admitted fact.
Therefore, merely because 2.5 times candidates of the vacancy are required to be called to participate in the interview is not required to be considered rather the other conditions i.e., to have secured minimum qualifying marks in the papers of both the Sections, i.e., Section-I and Section-II, as stipulated in the advertisement, would also have to be considered.
Admittedly, the writ petitioners have not secured the minimum qualifying marks as fixed by the JPSC under the authority of the conferment of power in view of the provision of Rules, 2016 and, therefore, the candidates under EWS and
- 17 -
ST categories who have found to have secured minimum qualifying marks have been declared to be successful which comes to 1.8 times of the total vacancies in EWS and ST categories.
12. The position of law is well settled that if any condition is stipulated in the advertisement, the same is strictly to be adhered to, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 489 as also the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC
617. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85. Paragraph-29 from the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:-
"29.We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the
- 18 -
advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded anequal opportunity to apply and compete.
Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
13. In the facts of the given case, since the candidates have not secured the minimum qualifying marks in both Sections, i.e., Section-I and Section-II, as has been fixed by the JPSC, there is no question of raising the issue to declare such candidates successful who have not found to have secured minimum qualifying marks as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement by taking the plea that why 2.5 times candidates of the vacancy in EWS and ST categories have not been called upon.
It is not the case that the candidates under the different categories who have been found to have secured minimum qualifying marks as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement have not been declared successful rather in all other categories, save and except EWS and ST categories, 2.5 times candidates of the total vacancies have been declared to
- 19 -
be successful to participate in the interview but in the EWS and ST categories, only 1.8 times of the candidates have been found to have secured minimum qualifying marks as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement and minimum qualifying marks fixed by the JPSC, therefore, there is no question of seeking a direction from the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring the candidates successful who have not secured the minimum qualifying marks as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement and the marks fixed by the JPSC.
It is to refer herein that the condition as has been stipulated under Rule 3(ix) of the resolution dated 27.11.2012 as also the condition as under Clause 11(B)(7) of the Advertisement No.05/2019, requires a candidate to be declared successful only if he/she gets minimum qualifying marks in both the Section, i.e., Section-I and Section-II. Further, the papers of Section-II are required to be evaluated of such candidates who have been found to be successful in Section-I, Objective type papers.
The aforesaid Rules have not been questioned by the writ petitioners and as such, if the result has been published on the basis of the aforesaid Rule, the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to question the selection process which is based upon the aforesaid Rules, that too, when they have been declared to be unsuccessful.
- 20 -
14. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect in entirety, has gone across the order passed by the learned Single Judge and found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has appreciated the fact by taking into consideration the Rules, 2016, resolution dated 27.11.2012 and the condition stipulated in the advertisement as contained under Clause 11(B)(7) and came to the conclusive finding that there is no justification in allowing the writ petition by quashing and setting aside the result of the Main (written) examination.
15. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, is of the considered view that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
16. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
17. Stay petition (I.A. No.6957 of 2022) also stands disposed of.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Birendra/ A.F.R.