Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1 (JHR)

Amit Kumar Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-03

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2015
ORDER The grievance of the petitioner is that although he is eligible to be called for in the interview for consideration of his case for appointment to the post of District Fishery Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer/District Fishery Officer/Lecturer pursuant to an advertisement being Advertisement No. 16/2011 dated 21.8.2011, issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi (JPSC), but he has not been called for in the interview on the ground of having secured lesser marks than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate under the General Category. Further grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents-JPSC has not calculated the marks of his academic career according to Rule 5(3)(a) of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2002 and he has been allotted lesser marks by not calculating the marks secured by him in Graduation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the JPSC being a Constitutional Body is supposed to follow the Rules of Procedure, 2002 and if the provision of the said Rules would have been followed, the petitioner would have got 64.11 marks, which is more than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate under the General Category i.e. 62.60 marks. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-JPSC has submitted that the Rules of Procedure, 2002 have been followed in its letter and spirit. Since the petitioner has been found eligible on the basis of his minimum qualification of Post Graduate Degree in Zoology (Fisheries) from a recognized University, as such the marks obtained by him in his educational career right from Matriculation to Intermediate and the minimum qualification i.e. Post Graduate Degree in Zoology has been taken into account, and as per the procedure laid down in the Rules of Procedure, 2002, since the petitioner has obtained only 60.44 marks, which is less than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate under the General Category, he has not been called for in the interview. The contention of the petitioner that his marks of Graduation ought to have been added, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that since the petitioner is not possessing the minimum qualification of B.Sc.(Zoology) along with certificate in two years diploma in Fisheries Science Course from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai or Bachelor in Fisheries Science from any recognized University (B.F.Sc.), as such the marks obtained by him in Graduation cannot be added and the JPSC has added the marks of his minimum qualification of Post Graduate Degree in Zoology (Fisheries). If the marks obtained by the petitioner in Graduation would have been added, the same would lead to give premium to the petitioner because as per the Rules of Procedure, 2002, the candidates would be selected for interview on the basis of their career marks to be calculated on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in each examination from Matriculation upto the level of minimum qualification required. Referring to the Rules of Procedure, 2002, learned counsel submitted that the marks obtained by the petitioner in Matriculation, Intermediate and the minimum qualification, which is Post Graduate Degree (Fisheries) has been added. Since the petitioner has obtained 60.44 marks on that basis, which is less than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate under the General Category, the petitioner has not been found fit to be called for in interview. The JPSC has adopted uniform policy with respect to other similarly situated candidates and as such the principle laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has not been violated, rather a uniform policy for all similarly situated candidates has been followed. It has been further submitted that the candidates have been shortlisted from 15.10.2014 to 17.10.2014 and after completion of the interview, the list has been prepared on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates, and thereafter the final recommendation for appointment of the successful candidates has been made and forwarded to the State Government on 22.10.2014. Hence, the entire selection process has already been completed by the JPSC. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted by filing counter affidavit that the requisition had been made by the concerned department before the JPSC for filling up the posts of District Fishery Officer-Chief Executive Officer/District Fishery Officer/Lecturer. In terms of the said requisition, the JPSC had started the recruitment process. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted by filing counter affidavit that the requisition had been made by the concerned department before the JPSC for filling up the posts of District Fishery Officer-Chief Executive Officer/District Fishery Officer/Lecturer. In terms of the said requisition, the JPSC had started the recruitment process. According to the provision contained in the Rules of Procedure, 2002, the candidates have been selected for interview. Since the petitioner is possessing the minimum qualification of Post Graduate Degree in Zoology (Fisheries), the marks secured by him in Matriculation, Intermediate and the minimum qualification i.e. Post Graduate Degree in Zoology have been calculated on the basis of which the petitioner has obtained 60.44 marks. Learned counsel further submitted that the JPSC has completed the selection process according to the Rules of Procedure, 2002. 5. Heard the parties, perused the record. 6. The grievance that has been raised by the petitioner is that he has not been qualified to be called for in interview since the JPSC has not followed the procedure as contained in Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, 2002. For determining this issue, it is necessary to see the provision of Rule 5(3)(a) of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Rules of Procedure, 2002, which is quoted herein below : “(3) If the number of applicants in response to an advertisement is rather large, the Commission prescribes the following criteria for short-listing of the candidates for being called for interview. (a) The candidates shall be selected for interview on the basis of their career marks to be calculated on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in each examination from Matriculation upto the level of minimum qualification required. The percentage of marks shall be added together and divided by the number of examinations and a merit list accordingly prepared.” Simultaneously, Rules 7 & 8 of the Rules of Procedure, 2002 are also worth to be seen, which are as follows: “(7) Marks to be awarded in the interview/viva voce test shall be in the ration of 100(hundred) marks for academic achievement and 100 (hundred) marks for interview/viva voce test. (8) Mode of distribution of marks of academic achievement shall be decided by a Committee of Members including the Chairman. Members of the Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman. Decision of the Committee shall be deemed to be the decision of the Commission.” 7. (8) Mode of distribution of marks of academic achievement shall be decided by a Committee of Members including the Chairman. Members of the Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman. Decision of the Committee shall be deemed to be the decision of the Commission.” 7. Before discussing the said provisions, it is relevant to emphasize the impact of the Rules of Procedure, 2002. In pursuance of the said Rules, JPSC is assessing the candidature of one or the other candidates for filling up different types of posts. The provisions contained in Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure, 2002 speaks with respect to recruitment by selection. Under Rule 5, there is Rule 5(3)(a), as quoted herein above, which speaks that if the number of applicants in response to an advertisement is rather large, the Commission will adopt policy for short-listing candidates for being called for in interview. Further, by virtue of Rule 7 and particularly Rule 8 power has been vested upon the JPSC to decide the mode of distribution of marks of academic achievement. 8. In the instant case, the number of candidates is 305, as such the Commission has adopted the policy as contained in Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, 2002, wherein the provision has been made to select the candidates for interview on the basis of their career marks to be calculated on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in each examination from Matriculation upto level of the minimum qualification required. The grievance of the petitioner is that his marks of Matriculation, Intermediate, Graduation and Post Graduate ought to have been added for the purpose of preparing merit list, but that has not been done, as such the provision as contained in Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, 2002 has not been followed. 9. To adjudicate this issue, it is necessary to see the minimum qualification, as mentioned in Column No.5 of the advertisement under the heading ‘Qualification’, which is : B.Sc. (Zoology) along with certificate in two years diploma in Fisheries Science Course from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. Or Bachelor in Fisheries Science from any recognized University (B.F.Sc.) Or Post Graduate Degree in Zoology (Fisheries) from any recognized University. 10. (Zoology) along with certificate in two years diploma in Fisheries Science Course from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. Or Bachelor in Fisheries Science from any recognized University (B.F.Sc.) Or Post Graduate Degree in Zoology (Fisheries) from any recognized University. 10. The contention of the JPSC is that they have evolved a policy pursuant to the power conferred under Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure, 2002 and, accordingly, a meeting was held on 26.9.2014 evolving a policy to allot marks of career achievement in the ratio of 25 marks each for Matriculation and Intermediate and 50 marks for minimum required qualification. A copy of the said decision taken on 26.9.2014 has been placed before the Court, which is being kept on record. According to the J.P.S.C, it has been done to adopt a uniform policy for addition of marks of three examinations for all categories of candidates. 11. The petitioner is not possessing qualification of B.Sc. (Zoology) along with certificate in two years diploma in Fisheries Science Course from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai or Bachelor in Fisheries Science from any recognized University (B.F.Sc.), rather he is possessing Post Graduate Degree in Zoology (Fisheries). The contention of the petitioner is that though he is not possessing the qualification of B.S.C (Zoology) or Bachelor in Fisheries Science, he is Graduate and as such his marks obtained in Graduation ought to have been added as per the provision contained in Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, 2002, but the J.P.S.C has only added the marks obtained by him in Post Graduate Degree in Zoology (Fisheries). Hence, the provision as contained in Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, 2002 has not been followed, otherwise the petitioner would have got 64.11 marks, which is higher than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate i.e. 62.60 marks, which cannot be accepted and is not reasonable as well. Moreover, a uniform policy has been evolved which has been made applicable for all similarly situated candidates like the petitioner. 12. Moreover, a uniform policy has been evolved which has been made applicable for all similarly situated candidates like the petitioner. 12. The Rules of Procedure, 2002 have been formulated containing the provision as contained in Rule 5(3)(a) along with Rule 8 contained therein, as such reliance of the petitioner only on Rule 5(3)(a) cannot be accepted ignoring Rule 8 at the same time, and application of Rule 8 in order to adopt a uniform criteria for all the candidates for selection by adding career marks of three examinations seems justifiable. 13. JPSC has adopted a policy in its meeting held on 26.9.2014 on the basis of Rule 8 of the Procedure of Rules, 2002, whereby 25% marks for each examination i.e. for Matriculation and Intermediate and 50% marks for minimum required qualification has been decided to be given and accordingly a merit list has been prepared on the basis of this policy. Since the JPSC has adopted a uniform policy by taking a decision on 26.9.2014, which is applicable to all the candidates equally, it cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise on part of JPSC. 14. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been singled out by not adding the marks of Graduation, rather his case is that the Rules of Procedure, 2002 has not been followed. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the JPSC has evolved a policy decision on the basis of power conferred on it under Rule 5(3)(a) and Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure, 2002, which is applicable to all. Hence, it cannot be said to be discriminatory and suffering from biasness. 15. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been discriminated or any unfairness has been adopted by the JPSC. JPSC being a Constitutional Body is supposed to act with all fairness and transparency, and if the action of the Commission is not arbitrary or discriminatory or unfair, it cannot be interfered with. 16. JPSC has prepared merit list of the candidates by calculating the career marks of three examinations. JPSC being a Constitutional Body is supposed to act with all fairness and transparency, and if the action of the Commission is not arbitrary or discriminatory or unfair, it cannot be interfered with. 16. JPSC has prepared merit list of the candidates by calculating the career marks of three examinations. If the contention of the petitioner would be accepted and if the marks of the petitioner would have been added at the Graduation level then the marks of four stages of the petitioner and other similarly situated like the petitioner would be given premium over others and thus the same would be an unfair practice and would adversely affect the rights of other candidates whose merit list has been prepared by adding career marks of three examinations. 17. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he has been singled out and discriminated, as the respondents-JPSC has adopted a procedure that is uniform and in my view has been equally applied on all candidates. Under such circumstances, it does not warrant any interference of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This has been duly considered and held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.P Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath reported in 2009(5) SCC 1 at Paragraph 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 Court would not ordinarily interfere therewith ........." 18. Moreover, interference of this Court in any administrative decision has to be limited to bare minimum until and unless the order itself is arbitrary and illegal. This view has been supported by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 wherein it has been held that the Court does not interfere with administrative decision. 19. I see no case of arbitrariness or illegality that has been committed in the instant case. 20. This view has been supported by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 wherein it has been held that the Court does not interfere with administrative decision. 19. I see no case of arbitrariness or illegality that has been committed in the instant case. 20. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules of Procedure, 2002 has not been followed, cannot be accepted in view of the power conferred on the JPSC to evolve its own method of allotting marks, as has been dealt with in Rule 8 and accordingly a decision was taken on 26.9.2014 under the provision as contained in Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure, 2002, which is uniform for all the candidates. 21. This is a selection process in which the advertisement had been issued in the month of August, 2011 and it has been informed that the selection process has already been completed way back in the month of October, 2014 recommending the names of the successful candidates for their appointment. Hence, no interference can be shown due to the reasons discussed herein above. 22. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 23. Consequently, I. A. No. 6684/2014 and I. A. No. 09/2015 stand disposed of.