ORDER D.G.R. Patnaik, J. I.A. No. 789 of 2008 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. 3. 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. 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. 4. 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. 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. 5. 5. It may be mentioned here that vide order dated 23.9.2008, while allowing the respondent-U.G.C. and the J.P.S.C. time to file the counter-affidavit, this Court had passed an interim order directing that till the next date fixed in the case, the appointments shall not be finalized. The interim order continued to be extended from time to time and has continued till date. 6. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4-J.P.S.C. Denying and disputing the entire claims of the petitioners and challenging the very maintainability of this writ application, the stand taken by the J.P.S.C. is that in laying down the eligibility criteria and preparation of the selection process, the J.P.S.C. had fully complied with the directives contained in the judgment of this Court, passed in the case of Jharkhand B.E.T.-S.E.T. Association, vide WP (S) No. 5091 of 2006. The rules of eligibility criteria and selection process were prepared and the examination was conducted strictly in terms with the guidelines laid down by the U.G.C. in conducting the J.E.T.-S.E.T. examination. After publication of the result of the J.E.T. Examination and in pursuance to the requisitions submitted by the different Universities of Jharkhand, which was also verified by the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, the J.P.S.C. had issued the Advertisement (Annexure-2), inviting applications from eligible candidates for considering their candidature for appointment to the posts of lecturers and others posts. The advertisement had also declared that the selection process would be conducted in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment of the High Court in the case of B.E.T.-S.E.T. Association (supra) and in accordance with the provisions of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. The minimum qualification for appointment to the posts of Lecturers was also categorically stated in the Advertisement. The Advertisement had also declared that in pursuance to the rule contained in Section 57(2)(b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (amended upto date), the selection is to be made only on the basis of interview/viva-voce test. Before starting the interview, a joint meeting, headed by the Chairman and comprising of one senior member of the Association, the Vice-chancellors of the different universities, the Deputy Director, Human Resources Development Department. Before starting the interview, a joint meeting, headed by the Chairman and comprising of one senior member of the Association, the Vice-chancellors of the different universities, the Deputy Director. Before starting the interview, a joint meeting, headed by the Chairman and comprising of one senior member of the Association, the Vice-chancellors of the different universities, the Deputy Director. Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the nominees of the State Government and the Principals of a few colleges, was held. It was unanimously proposed and resolved at the meeting to allocate 60 marks for the academic qualifications and 40 marks for the interview and to commence the interview from 29.3.2007. Such decision was also placed on the Website for information to all concerned and it was also published in the daily Newspapers on 16.3.2007. A High Power Interview Board, was constituted. After conducting the interview, a panel of the selected candidates was prepared in accordance with the results alongwith the Commission's recommendations for appointment of the successful candidates to the posts of lecturers in the various Colleges. 7. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned Counsel for the respondent- J.P.S.C., would explain that in laying down the selection process adopted in the present case, the respondent-J.P.S.C. has strictly acted in terms of the Guidelines/regulations of the U.G.C. and the J.P.S.C. has not violated any norms and regulations either of the U.G.C. or the directions contained in the judgments passed either by this Court or by the Supreme Court in any of the cases referred to by the petitioner. Learned Counsel argues further that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra), would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as because the facts of the Ashok Kumar Yadav's case refer to a competitive examination, consisting of a written examination followed by viva-voce test and it was in the light of such facts that the Apex Court had observed that the marks allocated for the viva-voce tests, should not exceed 12.2 per cent of the total marks. In the present selection process, which is under challenge, the selection has been made only on the basis of interview and not after conducting any written examination. In the present selection process, which is under challenge, the selection has been made only on the basis of interview and not after conducting any written examination. Learned counsel submits further that on a previous occasion, when the selection process for appointment to the post of Lecturers for the Universities of Bihar was commenced in the year 1993 by the Bihar State Universities, (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission in accordance with the provisions contained in the Bihar Universities Act and the Patna Universities Act, a dispute arose and was referred to the Patna High Court by way of a writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 12382 of 1996, on a similar ground, namely that the fixation of 60 marks for academic qualification and 40 marks for interview, was arbitrary and illegal. The High Court dismissed the writ application by observing "that the higher allocation of marks for interview than before may not be said to be arbitrary". The view of the learned single Judge in the above writ petition was upheld by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Appeal. The Appeal filed by the aggrieved candidates, against the order of the Division Bench, vide S.L.P. (Civil) Appeal No. 3697-3698 of 2000 was dismissed by the Apex Court on 7.4.2000. Learned Counsel submits further, that even having known through the publication in the newspapers and through website about the fixation of 40 per cent of cut-off marks for the interview, quite a few members of the Petitioner's Association had appeared at the interview without raising any objection though they could not succeed in the interview. The petitioner cannot therefore challenge the selection process after having accepted the selection criteria and after having appeared at the interview. Moreover, the entire selection process, having been completed, the process of appointment, has been held up only on account of the pendency of this writ application and the interest of more than 700 selected candidates, out of whom approximately 300 candidates are holders of Doctorate degrees, are liable to suffer prejudice. Moreover, the entire selection process, having been completed, the process of appointment, has been held up only on account of the pendency of this writ application and the interest of more than 700 selected candidates, out of whom approximately 300 candidates are holders of Doctorate degrees, are liable to suffer prejudice. As regards, the contention of the petitioner that inspite of the existence of large number of vacancies, the Advertisement was issued by the J.P.S.C. only for appointment to a limited posts of Lecturers, learned Counsel explains that in the Advertisement itself, it has been mentioned that the selection process was started in pursuance to the requisitions received from the State Government and there could be a possibility of increase/decrease in the number of posts. 8. Counter-affidavit has been filed also on behalf of the respondent-Universities. The stand taken by them is in support of the stand taken by the respondent-J.P.S.C. affirming that the selection process was adopted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the U.G.C. Act. 9. From the rival submissions, it appears that the main controversy as raised by the petitioners is in respect of the selection process adopted by the J.P.S.C. and that the fixation of 40 per cent marks for interview and 60 per cent for academic qualifications. The twin questions, which arise are (i) whether the respondent- J.P.S.C. had the authority to prescribe the criteria for the selection by fixing 40 per cent as the minimum marks for the interview and (ii) whether in doing so, could it be said that the J.P.S.C. has violated the U.G.C. norms and the guidelines and also the directives as contained in the various judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court. 10. Before answering these questions, it would be relevant to note that the eligibility criteria as laid down in the Advertisement, has not been challenged by the petitioners. It is not disputed that the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the Advertisement are in accordance with the U.G.C. Regulations. Likewise the method of selection by way of interview alone, has also been not questioned. Challenge on the other hand is only to the criteria for selection by fixing the minimum of 40 marks for the interview as has, been fixed by the J.P.S.C. which, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and would tend to eliminate the deserving candidates, who possess higher academic qualifications. 11. Challenge on the other hand is only to the criteria for selection by fixing the minimum of 40 marks for the interview as has, been fixed by the J.P.S.C. which, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and would tend to eliminate the deserving candidates, who possess higher academic qualifications. 11. What weightage should be given to the interview marks, has frequently been a subject-matter of controversy. A series of judgments have been passed by the Supreme Court on this issue. While some of the decisions relate to admissions in educational institutions, other relate to selection for employment. 12. From the counter-affidavit of the U.G.C., it transpires that so far as the distribution of marks for interview and/or viva-voce in the process of selection of lecturers is concerned, the U.G.C. has not prescribed any norms or guidelines. The percentage of marks/weightage to be distributed and assigned for interview and/or viva-voce has been left to-be considered and decided by the concerned university/authority undertaking the selection process for the post of lecturer. The counter-affidavit further states that in respect of the query made by the J.P.S.C., the U.G.C. by its letter dated 13.2.2008 (Annexure-3), has clarified the position. It has also been stated that the only guideline as prescribed by the U.G.C. Regulations is that of minimum qualifications for appointment of lecturer, and the same is mandatory in nature as contained in the U.G.C. Regulations on (minimum qualifications required for the appointment of lecturer and the career advancement of teachers and lecturers in universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000, together with the amended Regulations of 2002 and of 2006. 13. From the above, it appears that the J.P.S.C. on being called upon to make the selection of the suitable candidates for appointment on the posts of lecturers in the various universities was left with its own discretion to adopt the selection process, which could be subject only to the eligibility criteria fixed by the U.G.C. Regulations. The J.P.S.C. was therefore at liberty to confine the selection process by way of selection through interview/ viva-voce only. Guidance was available to the J.P.S.C. in this regard under the provisions of Rule 57(2)(b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, which the J.P.S.C. in its counter-affidavit has claimed to have adhered to and followed strictly. The J.P.S.C. was therefore at liberty to confine the selection process by way of selection through interview/ viva-voce only. Guidance was available to the J.P.S.C. in this regard under the provisions of Rule 57(2)(b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, which the J.P.S.C. in its counter-affidavit has claimed to have adhered to and followed strictly. The counter-affidavit of the J.P.S.C. declares that even though it was left to its discretion to prescribe the selection process by way of interview/ viva-voce test yet, it had preferred the matter to be decided upon by a select body of academicians including the nominees of the State Government and the Principals of various colleges, the Vice-chancellor of Universities, Chancellors of Universities and the Chairman and Senior member of the J.P.S.C. It was this Committee which had unanimously proposed and recommended to allocate 60 marks for the academic qualifications and 40 marks for interview. Thus, the selection process as adopted and prescribed by the J.P.S.C. was based on the recommendations of the Select Committee of Academicians and the percentage of marks was accordingly allocated as per the recommendations. 14. It may also be noted that the demand for the Government to take steps for appointment of lecturers in different constituent colleges of Universities in the Jharkhand came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Jharkhand B.E.T.-N.E.T. Association v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. WP (S) No. 1059 of 2006. While disposing of this writ application, this Court has issued a series of directions, which, inter alia, comprised of the following: (i) Direction to the State Government to verify within the time stipulated, the number of sanctioned teaching posts in the various Departments of one or the other constituent College. (ii) The number of such posts which had fallen vacant. (iii) The State Government on receipt of requisition by one or other University or is being made for sanction of posts of Lecturer for constituent colleges or Post Graduate Department, will forward the requisitions to the J.P.S.C. within one month thereafter, the J.P.S.C. in its turn will publish notice for appointment and within two months thereof scrutinize the applications, conduct written test/viva voce test etc. as required under the law and will publish the results within three months from the date of publication of the notice inviting applications (advertisement) and to make its recommendation within the said period. as required under the law and will publish the results within three months from the date of publication of the notice inviting applications (advertisement) and to make its recommendation within the said period. (iv) The University and the Constituent : Colleges in their turn, are required to issue letter of appointment in terms of the condition, as may be made by the J.P.S.C. and will fill up all the vacant posts of Lecturer within one month from the date of receipt of recommendation by the J.P.S.C. and the total procedure is to be completed preferably within nine months. 15. It was pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment in the aforesaid case that the number of vacancies and the sanctioned posts was identified by the State Government and on the basis of the identification made, the Universities had submitted their respective requisitions to the J.P.S.C. for making the selection and recommendation of candidates for appointment on the posts of lecturers. 16. As noted above, in the case of B.E.T.-N.E.T. Association (supra), no specified selection criteria was stipulated. The only requirement as per the directions contained in the judgment was that in the matter of selection of the candidates, the U.G.C. Guidelines had to be adhered. From the counter-affidavit of the U.G.C, it transpires that apart from fixing the minimum eligibility criteria, the U.G.C. has not prescribed any specific selection process for selection of candidates by way of interview. 17. As regards, the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), referred to by Sri Indrajit Sinha, in my opinion, this judgment cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. Though in the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that unduly high percentage marks allocated for the interview made the selection arbitrary, yet it did not set aside the selection on the ground that setting aside the selection would upset a large number of appointments already made. Even otherwise, the above observation was made in the context of the selection process in which the selection was made on the basis of not only interview but also on the basis of the written test. 18. Even otherwise, the above observation was made in the context of the selection process in which the selection was made on the basis of not only interview but also on the basis of the written test. 18. An identical issue raised in which the selection process was challenged on the ground that a higher percentage of marks was allocated for interview in comparison to the marks for the academic qualifications, the Patna High Court in the case of Rajeev Ranjan and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) after referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court including the judgments in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), had observed that the higher allocation of marks for interview may not be said to be arbitrary. The views of the single Judge in the case of Rajeev Ranjan (supra), was upheld by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. In the case of Anjar Ahmad v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1993 (2) PUR 135 (SC), the Supreme Court has observed that "allocation of 50 per cent marks for interview and 50 per cent marks for academic performance, where the selection is made on the basis of interview only is valid and does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness." 19. Furthermore, as it appear from the facts of the case, the selection criteria was placed on the website for information to all concerned. The petitioners Association is therefore deemed to have been made aware of the selection criteria. Quite a few candidates of the petitioner's Association had appeared at the interview on the scheduled dates. Having thus allowed themselves to the interviewed in accordance with the stipulated selection criteria, the same candidates cannot be allowed to challenge the procedure of selection process on their having been declared unsuccessful at the test. 20. In the light of the above facts, it cannot be said that fixing of minimum 40 marks for interview and 60 marks for the academic qualifications, suffers in any manner from the vice of arbitrariness or that it is against any guidelines issued by the U.G.C. or the guidelines issued by the High Court in the case of B.E.T.-N.E.T. Association (supra). 21. Both the questions having been thus answered in favour of the respondent-J.P.S.C. and finding no merit in this writ application, the same is dismissed. The interim order dated 23.1.2008 is here by recalled. 21. Both the questions having been thus answered in favour of the respondent-J.P.S.C. and finding no merit in this writ application, the same is dismissed. The interim order dated 23.1.2008 is here by recalled. Application dismissed.