Jharkhand High Court
Hansraj Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2022
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2420 of 2022
---
1. Hansraj Oraon
2. Dinesh Prasad
3. Shashi Shekhar
4. Pramod Kumar ... ... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Department of Road Construction through its Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. Department of Water Resources through its Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. Department of Drinking, Water and Sanitation through its Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
6. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi through its Secretary
7. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi .... ... Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 2391 of 2022
---
1. Ravi Shankar Singh
2. Vijay Minz
3. Vivek Kumar Marandi
4. Prem Prakash Tudu
5. Kumar Gautam
6. Dukhu Ram Soren
7. Jitendra Samad
8. Pawandeep Deogam
9. Joy Jamani Biruli
10. Shashi Hembrom
11. Binod Kumar Hembram
12. Shashank Shekhar
13. Sonu Stanley Tudu
14. Saurav Pratap
15. Sunny Kumar Singh
16. Krishna Mohan Soren
17. Subhash Kumar Manjhi
18. Sachin Jamuda
19. Basant Hembrom
20. Sajeet Kerketta
21. Amit Kumar Hansda
22. Anand Kumar
23. Manish Kumar Bhagat
24. Sundar Mohan Mardi
25. Mukesh Kumar Murmu
26. Ritesh Ranjan
27. Rajkishor Pandey
28. Arjun Tigga 2
29. Alok Ajit Lakra
30. Azad Daniel Bihan
31. Nitesh Baxla
32. Jimmy Jackson Purti
33. Bindeshwar Oraon
34. Birendra Toppo
35. Jyotish Kumar Oraon
36. Ravi Shankar Oraon
37. Sumit Oraon
38. Asif Shams ... ... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi through its Chairman
4. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi through its Secretary
5. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi .... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate [in W.P.(C) No. 2420 of 2022] Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate [in W.P.(S) No. 2391 of 2022] For the Resp.- State : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, A.C. to A.G. For the Resp.- JPSC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate Order No. 05 Dated: 29.06.2022 At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2391 of 2022, the original respondent no. 2 is deleted from the cause title of the said writ petition. Accordingly, the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand is rearranged as the respondent no. 2 in the array of parties.
2. Office is directed to make necessary correction, as stated above, in the cause title of W.P.(S) No. 2391 of 2022.
3. Both these writ petitions have been preferred for quashing and setting 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 contending that the same has not been declared strictly in accordance with the Jharkhand Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 2016 (in short, "the Rules, 2016") rather, instead of declaring minimum 2.5 times result of the candidates against the advertised post, the Jharkhand 3 Public Service Commission (JPSC) has published only 1.8 times of result for the interview. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent-JPSC to publish fresh revised result of Mains Examination by calling upon 2.5 times candidates against the notified vacancies for interview for the advertised post. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to declare the percentage of minimum qualifying marks/passing marks of Mains Exam for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) Category as the same has not been declared by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand till date whereas for other categories, the same has been declared and amended many times through resolutions.
4. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petitions is that an advertisement being Advertisement No. 05/2019 was notified and uploaded in the website of JPSC 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. As per the advertisement, the examination has to be conducted in three parts i.e. Preliminary Examination, Main (Written) Examination and Interview (Personality Test). Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners filled up the forms for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). All the petitioners appeared in the preliminary examination held on 19.01.2020 and successfully qualified in the same. Thereafter, they appeared in the Main (written) Examination, however they were not declared successful. The petitioners subsequently came to know that only 1.8 times results against the advertised post were published instead of 2.5 times which is mandatory as per Clause-3(ix) of the resolution as contained in memo no.-13026 dated 27.11.2012 issued by the Government of Jharkhand. After publication of result of Mains Examination on 19.05.2022, the petitioners immediately approached the respondent-JPSC raising their grievances through various e-mails, however, of no avail. Hence, the present writ petitions.
5. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners of 4 W.P.(C) No. 2420 of 2022, submits 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 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 further submitted 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. After release of the answer key by the respondent-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. 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 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. In view of Clause 3(ix) of the resolution dated 27.11.2012, minimum 2.5 times candidates of notified vacancies should be called for interview. The said provision is mandatory which needs to be strictly followed. In all other previous examinations conducted for Class-II posts in the State of Jharkhand, minimum 2.5 times candidates of the notified vacancies have been called for interview. Even in the last examination which was conducted in the year 2013, the candidates were provisionally shortlisted for interview in the ratio of 1:3 which is evident 5 from the result of the written test of Combined Assistant Engineer Recruitment Examination, 2013. As per Sl. No. 6(i)(v) of Schedule-II of the Rules, 2016, 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. The JPSC has the right to select the candidates who have passed the Mains Examination in each subject/paper by obtaining minimum qualifying marks as per resolution dated 27.11.2012 or in alternative, it has to be seen whether the candidates have obtained minimum qualifying marks in aggregate. The JPSC has declared the result of Mains Examination on 19.5.2022 calling the candidates to appear in interview, however its action in not declaring the Mains Examination result to the extent of 2.5 times of the advertised vacancies, rather publishing the result only to the extent of 1.8 times being contrary to Clause 3(ix) of the Resolution dated 27.11.2012 is arbitrary and not permissible in the eyes of law. The State Government has failed to declare the minimum qualifying/passing marks for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) due to which the benefits of reservation could not be extended to EWS category which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The JPSC has not declared the results of those candidates who have qualified in Objective papers of Mains Examination i.e. Section-I, in terms with the aforesaid advertisement which is highly arbitrary and illegal. It is further submitted that such action of the JPSC is contrary to the Rules framed by the State Government. Moreover, it has diverted from stipulated terms of the said advertisement in publishing the result of Mains Examination.
6. Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2391 of 2022 adopts the argument of Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 2420 of 2022. He further submits that the Rules, 2016 contains enabling provision which gives the JPSC an option for the present advertisement to choose a method to determine the minimum qualifying marks for objective type papers as well as subjective type papers either individually or sum of marks of all the papers of written examination. However, it has failed to publish as to what cut-off/qualifying marks was 6 fixed while selecting the candidates for interview. It is further submitted that since the JPSC has not adhered to the condition of calling the candidates to the extent of 2.5 times of notified vacancies for interview as stipulated in Clause-3(ix) of the resolution dated 27.11.2012, the petitioners despite having secured qualifying/cut-off marks, have not been included in the interview process. The petitioners are well qualified graduates and it will be difficult for them to accept the situation that despite obtaining minimum cut-off marks in the objective papers (Section- I), they were unable to secure decent marks in the subjective papers (Section-II). The petitioners have legitimate expectation to be called for interview as they have secured minimum qualifying marks in Section-I of Mains Examination.
7. Mr. Soren, in support of his submission, puts reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Building Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan reported in (1998) 7 SCC 66, wherein it has been held that the doctrine of "Legitimate Expectation" has its genesis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its functionaries, in administering the affairs of the country are expected to honour their statements of policy and to treat the citizens with impartial consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion.
8. Mr. Soren further submits that every candidate should get equal opportunity to prepare for examination and no one should be kept in dark by taking decision behind the curtain. In the case in hand, the respondent- JPSC has just performed the job of copying and pasting the enabling provisions of the Rules, 2016 in the said advertisement and later on decided not to take aggregate marks of Section-I and Section-II of Mains Examination for fixing minimum qualifying marks. Had it been a situation and if it was clearly mentioned by the JPSC that the candidates were required to obtain minimum qualifying marks in each section of Mains Examination papers in terms of regulation dated 27.11.2012, the candidates would have prepared accordingly. It is also submitted that almost 300 candidates have not been selected for interview due to non- fulfillment of the mandate of calling the candidates to the extent of not less than 2.5 times of notified vacancies.
79. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JPSC in both the writ petitions, submits that in view of Rules, 2016, minimum qualifying marks may be fixed in any or all the papers of the examination in accordance with Resolution no. 13026 dated 27.11.2012 and Resolution No. 7358 dated 12.09.2019 issued by the Department of Personal, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. In terms with the provisions of the said Rule, it was mentioned in the Advertisement No. 05/2019 that answer sheets of the objective type papers of the Mains Examination as contained in Section-I would be evaluated first and evaluation of answer sheets of the subjective type papers i.e., Section-II of only those candidates would be done who had obtained the minimum qualifying marks in objective type papers i.e., Section-I, as fixed by the Commission. It is also mentioned in the Rules, 2016 that the Commission shall have discretion to fix the qualifying marks in any or all the subjects individually or sum of all the papers in the written examination. On perusal of the said Rules and the Advertisement, it would be evident that minimum qualifying marks for each category was to be taken into consideration in the light of aforesaid resolutions. It is also submitted that after issuance of Advertisement No. 05/2019, several candidates including the petitioners submitted their online application forms for consideration of their candidature for appointment against the advertised vacancies and in the preliminary examination, altogether 5,528 candidates including the petitioners were declared successful for appearing in the Mains (Written) Examination. The JPSC after conducting the mains Examination, published the result of the Mains (Written) Examination on 19.05.2022 and only those candidates were declared successful who secured minimum qualifying marks in Section I as well as Section-II papers. The purpose of fixing the minimum qualifying marks in Section-II is to select technically sound persons for the post of Assistant Engineer. Section-II papers are subjective in nature concerning relevant engineering disciplines and a person should have requisite competency in those papers for being selected as Assistant Engineer.
10. Mr. Piprawall further submits that in all categories except in EWS and ST categories, 2.5 times candidates of the requisitioned vacancies have 8 been declared successful in the mains examination for appearing in interview. It is also submitted that altogether 542 posts have been advertised for Civil Engineering wing and 1,056 candidates have been declared successful in the result of Mains Examination. Similarly for Mechanical Engineering wing, 225 candidates have been declared successful in the mains examination. 1.8 times candidates have been declared successful in the mains examination in the aforesaid two categories in view of the fact that only 1.8 times candidates have secured minimum qualifying marks in both the sections i.e. Section-I and Section-II of the said examination. After publication of the Mains Examination result, JPSC also fixed the date of document verification of the successful candidates as well as for interview from 29.05.2022 to 12.06.2022. Though the petitioners have prayed for quashing the Mains Examination result dated 19.05.2022, however they have not impleaded the successful candidates as party respondents in the present writ petitions. The petitioners are the unsuccessful candidates and it is a well settled law that selection process cannot be challenged by unsuccessful candidates who have appeared in the examination. As such, these writ petitions are not maintainable and are fit to be dismissed.
11. It is further submitted that the petitioners' prayer to declare cut-off marks of EWS category as well as of the objective type papers is not tenable in terms with the Rules of Procedure, 2002 (amended up-to-date) as during the pendency of the selection process, any type of marks cannot be disclosed to the candidates. Moreover, earlier Resolutions for fixing the minimum cutting marks were amended and the cut-off marks for EWS category was fixed as 40% vide Resolution No. 3928 dated 11.08.2020.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on records.
13. The petitioners have challenged the Mains Examination result of Jharkhand Combined Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechancial) Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination (Advertisement No. 05/2019).
14. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent-JPSC has not called the candidates to the extent of 2.5 times of the advertised vacancies for appearing in interview, rather they have only called the candidates 1.8 times of the advertised vacancies 9 which is contrary to the stipulation made in Clause-3(ix) of the Resolution as contained in Memo No. 13026 dated 27.11.2012.
15. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC has contended that only 1.8 times candidates have been declared successful in two categories (i.e., EWS and ST categories) of the Combined Assistant Engineer Mains Examination in view of the fact that 2.5 times of the candidates could not obtain minimum qualifying marks both in section-I and section-II papers. It has further been contended that in rest of the categories, the candidates to the extent of 2.5 times of advertised vacancies have been declared successful to be called for interview in terms with the stipulation made in Resolution dated 27.11.2012. The JPSC had the discretion to fix minimum qualifying marks in any or all the papers of the mains examination in accordance with the Resolution dated 27.11.2012. In exercise of the said power, the JPSC decided to declare the result of Main (Written) Examination of only those candidates (category wise) who secured minimum qualifying marks in both Section-I and Section-II of the said examination. Mr. Piprawall has further submitted that among the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 2420 of 2022, the petitioner no.1 has failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in Section-I papers of the said examination and as such his answer sheet of Section-II papers examination was not evaluated. Hence, the petitioner no. 1 was not declared successful in the result dated 19.05.2022. So far as the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, they have failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in Section - II papers of the said examination and as such they have also not been declared successful in the said result. Moreover, in W.P.(S) No. 2391 of 2022, the petitioners except petitioner no. 27 and 38 have failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in Section- II papers of the said examination and as such they have not been declared successful in the mains examination. The OMR sheet of the petitioner no. 27 has been rejected owing to the fact that he failed to darken the relevant circles of Booklet Series in OMR answer sheet. It has been mentioned in Clause-4 of the instructions given in the admit card that OMR answer sheet will be processed electronically and OMR scanning machine will reject OMR sheet in which roll number and booklet series are not properly and correctly (in words and numbers or both as required) 10 darkened or filled up in the OMR sheet.
16. I have perused Sl. No. 6(i)(v) of Schedule-II of Rules, 2016 which gives discretion to the respondent-JPSC to fix the qualifying marks in any or all the subjects of written examination individually or to fix qualifying marks in sum of marks of all the papers. I have also perused Clause-6 of Appendix-I of Schedule-III of the Rules, 2016 which provides that the 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 Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand. It has further been provided that question papers of Section-I (objective type) will be evaluated first and the question papers of Section-II (subjective type) of only those candidates will be evaluated who have secured minimum qualifying marks in objective type question papers of Section-I. The same provision has also been provided in Clause 11(B)(7) of the Advertisement No. 05/2019.
17. The petitioners have failed to show any provision either in the Rules, 2016 or in the aforesaid Advertisement which provides that there shall not be minimum qualifying marks for Section-II papers of the Mains Examination. In the advertisement and the Rules, 2016, it has rather been provided that the question papers 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. Moreover, in view of Rules, 2016, the Commission had the discretion to fix minimum qualifying marks for one or all the papers. The specific stand of the respondent-JPSC is that it has exercised its discretion by fixing the minimum qualifying marks for the papers of both Section-I and Section-II taking decision in the meeting dated 29.11.2021.
18. It appears to this Court that minimum qualifying marks has been provided under Clause-3(vi) of Resolution dated 27.11.2012 (subsequently amended vide memo no. 7358 dated 12.09.2019) which has been made applicable in the competitive examinations to be conducted for all services/cadres as well as for different reserved categories and has to be applied to both the objective and subjective papers of all written examinations.
19. The plea of legitimate expectations of the petitioners as has been 11 raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is also not acceptable as neither in the advertisement nor in the Rules, 2016, it has been specifically provided that minimum qualifying marks for Section-II papers will not be fixed by the JPSC. Had there been such specific stipulation in the advertisement or in the Rules, 2016, the position would have been different, however in absence of the same, the decision of the JPSC in also fixing the minimum qualifying marks for Section-II papers cannot be held to be arbitrary that too when it had the discretion to fix it in the said manner.
20. So far the claim of the petitioners that the JPSC did not select the candidates to the extent of 2.5 times of the advertised vacancies, the JPSC has specifically replied in the counter affidavit that in EWS and ST categories, such number i.e. 2.5 times of the candidates could not get minimum qualifying marks in the papers of both Section-I and Section-II. As such, 1.8 times of the candidates in the said categories have been selected as they got minimum qualifying marks in the papers of both Section-I and Section-II. However in the rest categories, 2.5 times of the candidates have been selected. The said fact has not been controverted by the petitioners. Moreover, I have perused Clause 3(ix) of the Resolution dated 27.11.2012 which provides that for those services/cadres wherein after written examination there is provision for interview/eligibility test, the number of candidate to be called for interview will ordinarily be not less than 2.5 times of the notified vacancies. It thus appears that the provision for selection of the candidates to the extent of 2.5 times of notified vacancies for the purpose of interview is under ordinary circumstance. It had not been provided that the same shall mandatorily be applied in all circumstances. Therefore, it may be safely construed from the said provision that the State while making such stipulation was of the intention that under special circumstance, the said requirement can be varied. Since in the present case, the candidates of EWS and ST category to the extent of 2.5 times of the notified vacancies did not get minimum qualifying marks in the papers of both the sections, 1.8 times of the candidates have been declared successful for interview in those categories under special circumstance.
21. Another limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that 12 the respondent-JPSC could not have fixed the minimum qualifying marks for papers of Section-II since the same was neither provided in the Advertisement nor in the Rules, 2016.
22. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners have put reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chairman, All India Railway Rec. Board and Another Vs. K. Shyam Kumar and Others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 614 wherein it has been held as under:-
"36. Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223] applies to a decision which is so reprehensible in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral or ethical standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the issue to be decided could have arrived at it. Proportionality as a legal test is capable of being more precise and fastidious than a reasonableness test as well as requiring a more intrusive review of a decision made by a public authority which requires the courts to "assess the balance or equation"
struck by the decision-maker. Proportionality test in some jurisdictions is also described as the "least injurious means" or "minimal impairment" test so as to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens and to ensure a fair balance between individual rights and public interest. Suffice it to say that there has been an overlapping of all these tests in its content and structure, it is difficult to compartmentalise or lay down a straitjacket formula and to say that Wednesbury has met with its death knell is too tall a statement. Let us, however, recognise the fact that the current trend seems to favour proportionality test but Wednesbury has not met with its judicial burial and a State burial, with full honours is surely not to happen in the near future.
37. Proportionality requires the court to judge whether action taken was really needed as well as whether it was within the range of courses of action which could reasonably be followed. Proportionality is more concerned with the aims and intention of the decision-maker and whether the decision-maker has achieved more or less the correct balance or equilibrium. The court entrusted with the task of judicial review has to examine whether decision taken by the authority is proportionate i.e. well balanced and harmonious, to this extent the court may indulge in a merit review and if the court finds that the decision is proportionate, it seldom interferes with the decision taken and if it finds that the decision is disproportionate i.e. if the court feels that it is not well balanced or harmonious and does not stand to reason it may tend to interfere."
23. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC, has put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath & Ors. reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 wherein it has been held as under:-
13"23. The appellant Commission which has been constituted in terms of Article 315 of the Constitution of India is bound to conduct examination for appointment to the services of the State in terms of the Rules framed by the State. It is, however, free to evolve procedure for conduct of examination. While conducting the examination in a fair and transparent manner as also following known principles of fair play, it cannot completely shut its eyes to the constitutional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:
"335. Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts.--The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of State:
Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State."
25. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its function. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, the superior courts would not ordinarily interfere therewith. The State framed Rules in the light of the decision of the High Court in S. JafferSaheb [(1985) 2 APLJ 380] . Per se, it did not commit any illegality. The correctness of the said decision, as noticed hereinbefore, is not in question having attained finality. The matter, however, would be different if the said Rules per se are found to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a right to be considered therefor. A procedure evolved for laying down the mode and manner for consideration of such a right can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair."
24. Thus, the Commission which has been constituted in terms of Article 315 of the Constitution of India is bound to conduct examination for appointment to the services of the State in terms of the rules framed by the State. However, Commission is free to evolve procedure for conducting examination to judge the merit of the candidates. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play or disproportionate or illogical, the superior courts should not ordinarily interfere therewith.
25. I pause here for a moment to think over as to whether the decision of 14 the respondent-JPSC in fixing the minimum qualifying marks even for subjective papers under Section-II is arbitrary and unreasonable or the same has the rational to achieve certain objective.
26. On perusal of subjects of Section-I and Section-II, it is evident that under Section-I, Paper-1 comprises two parts of objective papers. Part-A is General English and Part-B is General Studies and both parts of paper-1 jointly carry maximum marks of 200. Paper-2 and Paper-3 are objective papers of technical subjects having 200 marks each. In Section-II, there are two subjective papers of technical nature carrying 200 marks each. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the extent that there should not have been minimum qualifying marks for Section-II papers and the candidates should have been selected for interview from the consolidated marks obtained in Section-I and Section-II is accepted, then there is every possibility that a person who has got higher marks in Section-I but has got very less marks or even 0 or 10 marks in Section-II will be eligible to be selected for interview and may finally become an Engineer. Engineering is purely a technical field and Civil or Mechanical Engineer has to contribute in infrastructural development of the country. A person who does not have requisite knowledge in the specialized filed, will not be able to perform the job properly. The papers of Section-II are purely technical subjects and a person who aspires to be an engineer should have requisite knowledge of technical subjects and the State is duty bound to ensure that a person who is being selected on a technical post, is having requisite skill/capability to hold that post which will also be in the interest of the society.
27. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the decision of the respondent-JPSC in also fixing the minimum qualifying marks for the papers of Section-II in the Mains Examination is not arbitrary, rather there is a rationale behind it.
28. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents should not have fixed minimum qualifying marks for Section-II papers so as to at least get 2.5 times of the candidates for interview which would have been the ideal situation and the petitioners as well as few more candidates would have also got chance to appear in the interview to make it more competitive.
1529. This Court is of the view that if the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, there will always be one unhappy section of candidates with a particular decision. For example, a candidate who gets higher marks in Section-II and less marks in Section-I will not be happy with the said decision. It has invariably been experienced that there is every possibility of some of the candidates having grievance against the examining body with their own reasoning/explanation in support of the claim on particular point. Let us assume if all those candidates rush to the Court, then in that situation, the court will have to examine all those grievances, which may not be legally tenable but will cause unnecessary delay in finalization of the examination process as also several candidates will be in the state of uncertainty. Thus, if the conduct of the examining body is found to be fair and reasonable, the constitutional court should not interfere with the examination process which will also be in the interest of public at large. That apart, in the present case the procedure adopted by the JPSC for selection of candidates to appear in interview has uniformly been applied to all the candidates. Moreover on document verification, interview of some of the candidates have already been completed.
30. Learned counsel for the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2391 of 2022 has also put reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (Civil Appeal No. 9217 of 2018) wherein it was observed on the basis of the advertisement dated October, 2016 that 40 percent marks was mixed as minimum qualifying marks in the preliminary examination as opposed to marks of two separate papers in that examination and appellant before the Supreme Court had got 40 percent marks in the aggregate insofar as the two papers were concerned. However, a committee of the State Government while clarifying the supposed ambiguity in the advertisement, opined with respect to "preliminary examination" mentioned in the advertisement which was that a candidate had to get 40 per cent minimum marks in each paper. Their Lordships have held that if there was any ambiguity in the advertisement, the same must fall in favour of the candidate who goes by the advertisement as it originally stood.
31. I am of the view that the observation made in the aforesaid case will 16 not apply in the facts and circumstance of the present case. In the said case, it was clearly stipulated in the advertisement that each candidate had to score 40% marks in preliminary examination and thus their Lordships rejected the decision of the committee to the effect that a candidate had to get 40% marks in each paper. In the case in hand there is no such ambiguity in the advertisement in question.
32. The writ petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed.
33. I.A. No. 4564 of 2022 filed in W.P.(C) No. 2420 of 2022 and I.A. No. 4542 of 2022 filed in W.P.(C) No. 2391 of 2022 are also dismissed accordingly.
Ritesh/AFR (Rajesh Shankar, J.)