Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1364 (JHR)

Archana Rai v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-04

D.N.PATEL

body2009
Order The present petition has been preferred for challenging the non-selection of the present petitioner by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission as a Lecturer. In pursuance of the public advertisement dated 31st January. 2007, the petitioner appeared in the viva-voce test and, thereafter, she was evaluated by the Interviewing Committee and looking to the overall performance of the present petitioner, the marks were allotted and were arranged in seriatim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that fixation of 40% of the marks for the viva-voce test is an arbitrary action and, therefore, the selection process of the respondents for the post of Lecturer deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2. This issue has already been decided by this Court in various writ petitions like in W.P.(C) No. 270 of 2008 decided on 20th March, 2009 and likewise in W.P.(C) No. 881 of 2008 with W.P.(C) No. 1069 of 2008 decided on 21st July, 2009 as well as in W.P.(S) No. 6251 of 2008 decided on 9th October, 2009 and in W.P.(S) No. 904 of 2008 decided on 25th August, 2009. In all these writ petitions, it has been held by this Court that fixation of 40% marks in viva-voce test is not an arbitrary action mainly for the reason that under Section 57(2)(b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, the procedure has been prescribed for the selection and there is no written test prescribed for the selection on the post of Lecturer and, therefore, viva-voce test is the only test, fixed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Thus, the judgments upon which the counsel for the petitioner is relying upon are not applicable of the facts of the present case. The reasons given in the aforesaid decisions are accepted by this Court for approving the fixation of 40% of marks for viva-voce test. It has been held by this Court in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 in W.P.(C) No. 881 of 2008 with W.P.(C) No. 1069 of 2008 vide order dated 21st July, 2009 are as under:- "3. The reasons given in the aforesaid decisions are accepted by this Court for approving the fixation of 40% of marks for viva-voce test. It has been held by this Court in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 in W.P.(C) No. 881 of 2008 with W.P.(C) No. 1069 of 2008 vide order dated 21st July, 2009 are as under:- "3. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case especially Section 57(2)(b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 and looking to the public advertisement dated 31st January, 2007 as well as looking to the publication in the daily newspaper on 16th March, 2007 and also looking to the several judgments referred in the decision rendered by this Court dated 20th March, 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 270 of 2008, there is no procedural irregularity or illegality in the selection process of the candidates for the post of Lecturers. Allocation of marks for viva-voce test cannot be labelled as an arbitrary, capricious or mala fide because there is no written test held in the present case because it is not required statutorily under Section 57 of the Act, 2000. When the Lecturers are to be appointed, their educational qualifications etc. are to be properly appreciated and, therefore, 60% marks are allotted to the educational qualification, and the educational achievements, but, it may happen that some candidates might have studied a part of the syllabus. Likewise part of a new syllabus might not have studied at all by those candidates. Therefore, to check their knowledge about the newly added syllabus, 40% of the marks have been allotted to the viva-voce test, cannot be said to be an arbitrary action, on the contrary, there is a valid and convincing logic for fixing 40% marks for viva-voce test. Therefore, to check their knowledge about the newly added syllabus, 40% of the marks have been allotted to the viva-voce test, cannot be said to be an arbitrary action, on the contrary, there is a valid and convincing logic for fixing 40% marks for viva-voce test. Whenever the Jharkhand Public Service Commission is selecting a candidate, all care ought to have been taken by the Commission so that a candidate is having a full knowledge of the latest syllabus of a particular faculty, may be selected, otherwise, if 100% are to be allotted for educational qualification, there are all chances for selection of those candidates, who have never studied the new syllabus, but, have secured higher marks during their graduation or post graduation study and they will be selected, but, that is not a correct or healthy method of a selection and, therefore, rightly the weightage has been given by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to evaluate a candidate from the view point of knowledge of latest syllabus. 4. There is also one more reason for allotment of 40% marks for the viva-voce test. A cardinal principle for taking viva-voce test is to check the suitability of the candidate for the relevant post. Higher percentage of marks during graduation or post graduation sometimes is not helpful for the appointment on the post. Academic qualification is not the sole criteria. Whether the candidate is promptly giving answer or not, what type of behaviour the candidate is having, what is the temperament of the candidate, especially when cornered questions are asked, tolerance power of the candidate and promptness and presence of mind and such other abilities will be checked in viva-voce test and, therefore, oral interview and its fixation of marks of 40% in the facts of the present case cannot be labelled as an arbitrary action. 5. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the ratio of 40% and 60% is not matching with each other. More marks should have been allotted to the educational qualification. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the higher percentage of marks in graduation or post graduation, sometimes is not giving the ability of teaching because teaching is an art and several other factors are to be checked of particular candidate as stated hereinabove, teachers have to deal with young students. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the higher percentage of marks in graduation or post graduation, sometimes is not giving the ability of teaching because teaching is an art and several other factors are to be checked of particular candidate as stated hereinabove, teachers have to deal with young students. This is the only contention raised in this ,petition otherwise, several contentions have already been raised by other candidates and they have dealt with in earlier writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 270 of 2008 and in view of this decision also, there is no substance in this petition and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed." In view of the aforesaid decision, there is no substance in this writ petition. 3. Likewise in the decision rendered by this Court dated 20th March, 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 270 of 2008, it has been held by this Court in paragraphs 11 to 19 that the fixation of. marks of 40% in the viva-voce test is, not an arbitrary action especially when there is no written test at all. 4. In view of this decision also, there is no substance in this writ petition and. hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.