ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In the instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Jharkhand Public Service Commission to hold fresh interview for recommending the names for appointment/deputation on the post of Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and for quashing the recommendation dated 15.3.2003 sent by the Commission whereby name of respondent No. 6 Dr. K.K. Srivastava and Dr. A.K. Srivastava only have been recommended for appointment on the post of Director, Higher Education. 2. Petitioners case is that they are holding the post of University Professor and/or Reader in the different department of Ranchi University. The post of Director, Higher Education in the erstwhile State of Bihar was always occupied by University Professor on the basis of appointment/deputation from teaching cadre of the University. In 2001 by Notification dated 1.6.2001 respondent No. 6 was appointed on deputation as Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Jharkhand. The said notification was challenged in W.P.S. No. 5946/2001. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.6.2002 directing the respondents to fill up the post by regular appointment/ posting after taking into consideration all relevant guidelines and candidature of all the eligible candidates. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the Commission sent letter to the Registrar of three Universities namely, Ranchi University, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and Sidhoo Kanhoo University, Dumka, calling the names of eligible candidates. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter all the petitioners applied for the said post alongwith their bio-data, as they are eligible for being considered and for appointment on the post of Higher Education. It is alleged by the petitioners that in mysterious way and at the behest of some influential person only five candidates were called for interview, i.e., one from Ranchi University, one from Sidhoo Kanhoo University, Dumka, two from Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and one respondent No. 6 Dr. K.K. Srivastava. The Commission finally recorded the names of two persons including respondent No. 6. 3. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submitted that validity and legally constituted Public Service Commission was not in existence and therefore, the recommendation sent by the Commission is non est in the eye of law. K.K. Srivastava. The Commission finally recorded the names of two persons including respondent No. 6. 3. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submitted that validity and legally constituted Public Service Commission was not in existence and therefore, the recommendation sent by the Commission is non est in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the Registrar, Ranchi University sent detailed information relating to 11 candidates from Ranchi University including the petitioners and there were total 47 eligible candidates for the post of Director from the three Universities of Jharkhand but the names of the petitioners were not called for the interview and the interview was held on 5.3.2003 by the Commission in which only four candidates appeared. Learned counsel submitted that no candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC were called for interview and only two names, i.e., Dr. K.K. Srivastava (respondent No. 6) and Dr. A.K. Srivastava were recommended by the Commission. Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of In R/o. Dr. Ram Ashray Yadav v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 2000 (4) SCC 309 , in the case of Jharkhand Justice Forum v. State of Jharkhand, 2003 (4) JCR 558 (Jhr) ; 2003 (4) JLJR 793 . 4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Advocate General on the other hand firstly submitted that Commission sent panel of two candidates for appointment on the post of Director, Higher Education and the matter is under consideration of the Government. According to the learned counsel post of Director, Higher Education is single post and does not require any reservation and the post is open for the candidates of all categories having requisite qualification as fixed by the State Government. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot question selection process and it is not open for the Court to scrutinise the decision of the Selection Committee. Learned counsel put reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434 , in the case of Jatinder Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1985 (3) SLR 60 and in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1999 (2) SLR 444. 5. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434 , in the case of Jatinder Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1985 (3) SLR 60 and in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1999 (2) SLR 444. 5. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by learned counsels, the moot question that falls for consideration is whether recommendation dated 15.3.2003 made by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission recommending the names of two candidates only is legal, valid and justified and can be given effect to. 6. It is the specific case of the respondents Commission in the counter- affidavit that pursuant to the requisition sent by Government to the Commission for appointment on the post of Director, Higher Education, names of several eligible candidates were sent by the concerned University for consideration. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that Commission thereafter made inquiries from the Registrar of the University and called for details of all candidates. In paragraph 22 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that application of all eligible applicants were scrutinised by the Commission for sort listing the candidates for the purpose of eliminating less meritorious candidates. In paragraph 23 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Commission after scrutinising the candidatures of all the applicants issued interview letters to only five persons who according to the Commission were found suitable and more meritorious for the post of Director, Higher Education. It is, therefore, clear that all exercise has been done by the Commission before issuing interview letters to only five candidates. Accordingly, interview was held on 15.3.2003 and finally the Commission sent recommendation of two candidates including respondent No. 6. However, it is stated that till date no appointment has been made in pursuance to the aforesaid recommendation. 7. The State of Jharkhand came into existence with effect from 14.11.2000 by virtue of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. After the State of Jharkhand came into existence the Government of Jharkhand passed a resolution on 19.1.2001 constituting an independent State Commission known as Jharkhand Public Service Commission. The State of Jharkhand did not straight way appoint Chairman and four other members as envisaged by the Regulation. On 25.1.2002 the Chairman of Public Service Commission was appointed. This was followed by appointment of a member of the Commission. The State of Jharkhand did not straight way appoint Chairman and four other members as envisaged by the Regulation. On 25.1.2002 the Chairman of Public Service Commission was appointed. This was followed by appointment of a member of the Commission. Thereafter, a Public Interest Litigations were filed before this Court for the constitution of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. In one Public Interest Litigation filed by Jharkhand Justice Forum against the State of Jharkhand challenging the appointment of teachers question with regard to validly constituted Commission came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court. Their Lordships delivered the judgment on 29.9.2003 and held that till date the Jharkhand Public Service Commission has not been constituted. Their Lordships observed: "Thus, though the Court may not interfere with the composition of a State Public Service Commission and may not invalidated its actions even if all the members constituting it do not act together, this Court can and has to consider whether the first State Public Service Commission as envisaged has come into existence at all. On considering that question, we are of the view that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission as a body is yet to be constituted. Going by the relevant provisions of the constitution and the Regulations framed, the constitution of the first Commission will be complete and effective only on the Chairman and the four members being initially appointed. The Constitution of the very body is different from the supplying of omissions in it. Since a proper body has not yet been constituted, we have to hold that the State Public Service Commission has not yet come into existence as contemplated. For it to perform its duties properly, the other members contemplated have also to be appointed as envisaged by the Regulations." 8. Their Lordships further observed : "Having said thus, we also think that it is proper to restrain the State Government, and the Chairman and the Member who have been appointed to the Public Service Commission, which is yet to be constituted as envisaged by the Constitution and the Regulations, from making recommendation for the appointments until the Public Service Commission as envisaged by the Regulations framed under Article 318 of the Constitution, in fact, has come into existence. In other words, until the State Public Service Commission consisting of the Chairman and four members comes into existence de facto and de jure, further steps by the Commission should be kept in abeyance. We, therefore, direct that unless and until the Chairman and the four members of the first Jharkhand Public Service Commission are appointed, the further process of selection and recommendations by the State Public Service Commission would be kept in abeyance. Further steps will be taken and the recommendations made only after a fulfledged State Public Service Commission comes into existence." 9. In the instant case, it has not been disputed by the respondents that at the relevant time when applications were invited by the Commission or when recommendation was made, no legally constituted Commission was in existence. At that time, only one chairman of the Commission and one member was appointed. No other members of the Commission were appointed as per Clause (3) of the Regulation. Curiously enough, from the records, It appears that acting Secretary of the Commission has done all exercise in the matter of scrutiny of papers and eligibility of the candidates and finally at his instance interview letters were issued only to five candidates. In my considered opinion, therefore, since no legally and validly constituted Commission was in existence in February and March, 2003 in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench, the recommendation sent by the Commission is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction and the said recommendation cannot be acted upon by the Government. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ application is allowed and the recommendation dated 15.3.2003 sent by so called Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of Director, Higher Education is quashed. The respondent-Government of Jharkhand and the Commission are directed to start the process of selection afresh for the post of Director, Higher Education and send the recommendation to the Government after considering the candidature of all the candidates eligible for consideration. This exercise must be completed within a period of two months from today.