Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner was an applicant under the advertisement no. 16/2011 for recruitment to the post of District Fisheries Officer issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC). However, he has preferred this writ application as he has not been called for interview. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the advertisement was issued in the year 2011 and after three years, interview is being called for without explaining any reason for the delay. It is further submitted that out of 305 candidates who had applied, 117 applicants were shown to be rejected. However, one of the candidates namely, Vikash Chandra Gope at serial no. 110 of the rejected list, has also been called for interview by the JPSC, as would appear from the list of short listed candidates at annexure-6. The petitioner's name did not find place in the rejected list, nor in the list of short listed candidates and no information is furnished as to the reasons for non consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are reasons to suspect extraneous consideration in the exercise as in the press note at annexure-5 showing the dates of interview, apart from 108 candidates earmarked for interview on 15 and 16 of this month, the Commission has provided space for interview for others on 17th October 2014, though there are only 117 short listed candidates. Therefore, the petitioner who has higher marks in M.Sc (Zoology) than the short listed candidate Vikash Chandra Gope who is only shown to have the qualification of M.Sc (Ichthyology) with 60% marks, has been denied opportunity to participate in the interview process for final recruitment. Therefore, there is arbitrariness and discrimination in the process of recruitment. 4. Counsel for the Respondent-JPSC has referred to the rules and procedure of 2002 specially Chapter-4 rule 3(a), (b) and (c) whereunder if number of candidates are less than 500, selection exercise would be undertaken on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in each examination from Matriculation up to the level of minimum qualification required and candidates, five times of number of vacancies i.e. 17 in the present advertisement, were to be called for interview. Considering the instances where more than one candidates have equal marks on educational qualification or date of birth of more than one candidates are same, number of candidates called for interview have gone up to 108 instead of 85. It is submitted that there are no pleadings in the writ petition about the assertion of the petitioner in respect of Vikash Chandra Gope who was in the rejected list and has been called for interview as his name occurs in the list of short listed candidates. Learned counsel on instruction also submits that the names of candidates whose applications were shown in the rejected list, were given opportunity to appeal vide annexure-4 to the writ application within a specified period and if they fulfilled the lacuna in the application form permissible to be corrected, such candidates were included in the short listed candidates if they scored enough marks for coming into the zone of consideration. Therefore, there is no irregularity, arbitrariness or discrimination in the recruitment exercise. It is further submitted that total marks obtained in the education career are calculated which are not only dependent upon the percentage of marks obtained in the post graduation or graduation, but cumulative marks obtained from Matriculation to the minimum level of qualification required in the advertisement. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record, the issue which have been raised in the present writ application, were more or less for consideration in the writ petition being WPS No. 5393/2014 [Rajani Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand & others) which has been heard and decided yesterday i.e. 13.10.2014 by this Court. The issues raised by the petitioner except in relation to the assertion about one Vikash Chandra Gope were also for consideration in the said judgment. So far as assertion about a candidate Vikash Chandra Gope is concerned, it appears that those candidates who were shown in the rejected list, were given opportunity to rectify defects in their application form by a particular date i.e. 20th June 2014. Learned counsel for the JPSC has explained the reasons as to why upon such correction, name of Vikash Chandra Gope may have been included in the short listed candidates after his application was found to be in order and he had fetched enough marks to come into the zone of consideration. Learned counsel for the JPSC has explained the reasons as to why upon such correction, name of Vikash Chandra Gope may have been included in the short listed candidates after his application was found to be in order and he had fetched enough marks to come into the zone of consideration. It however does not appear that there are any pleadings to that effect on record, though oral submission has been made. 6. Considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned exercise or to direct the respondents to issue interview letter to the petitioner in question as he has failed to show that the candidate having scored less points under evaluation criteria for short listing candidates, have been called for interview by the JPSC. The operative portion of the judgment rendered in WPS No. 5393/2014, is also being quoted hereunder as it deals with that aspect of the matter. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of all the relevant materials on record including the Rules of 2002, which lay down the procedure, it is apparent that the instant recruitment exercise for the 17 advertised post amongst 305 applicants is to be undertaken on the basis of merit list prepared on the basis of marks obtained by individual candidates in their educational career. Against 17 number of posts advertised, 5 times number of candidates are to be called for interview and, therefore, 108 candidates have been called for interview, which have been explained by the counsel for JPSC as some of the candidates may have same marks or dates of birth etc. The petitioners have failed to show that they have obtained more marks than the candidates, who were called for interview by JPSC for such selection. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out as the petitioners have failed to point out any arbitrariness or discrimination in recruitment exercise by JPSC or any contravention of the Rules of Procedure, 2002. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.