JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. Since the reliefs sought for in both the writ petitions are identical, with the consent of the respective counsels, both the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment. 2. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ applications were candidates on the post of Assistant Mining Officer in pursuance to Advertisement No.7/2016 dated 05.08.2016 call in question the legality and propriety of the short-listing of the candidates for interview to the said post as has been published in the official website of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, in which scheduled date of interview is on 10.11.2016 and 11.11.2016. The petitioners have further sought for quashing the selection process and also for direction to the respondents to consider their candidature in the selection process inclusive of written test and interview for the purpose of the said appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the selection process on the ground that the JPSC has conducted the process, is infraction of Jharkhand Public Service Commission Rules and Procedure 2002 and also the Jharkhand Mining Engineering Service Rules, 2011 and subsequent notification dated 20.01.2015 of the amendment of the Rule. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the action of the respondent no.2 in bye-passing the provision given in the advertisement for conducting written test, is smacks of illegality and arbitrary exercise of power and de hors of the Jharkhand Mining Engineering Services Rules, 2011 and its subsequent amendment. In order to substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2004) 6 SCC 786 (Inder Prakash Gupta vs. State of J & K and Ors.), the relevant extract at paragraph 28 is quoted here-in-below: 28. ….“The Public Service Commission is also required to be consulted on the matters enumerated under Section 133. While going through the selection process the Commission, however, must scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating in the field. It may be that for certain purposes, for example, for the purpose of shortlisting, it can lay down its own procedure. The Commission, however, must lay down the procedure strictly in consonance with the statutory rules. It cannot take any action which per se would be violative of the statutory rules or makes the same inoperative for all intent and purport. The Commission, however, must lay down the procedure strictly in consonance with the statutory rules. It cannot take any action which per se would be violative of the statutory rules or makes the same inoperative for all intent and purport. Even for the purpose of shortlisting, the Commission cannot fix any kind of cut-off marks.” 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr. S. Piparwall appearing on behalf of respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 has submitted that in pursuance to requisition sent by Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi started selection process for the appointment of Mining Officer against 13 posts in different categories. 468 application forms were found valid and in terms of Rule 5 (3) (a) and (b) of the Rules of Procedure 2002, JPSC short listed the candidates for interview on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in each examination from matriculation up to the level of minimum qualification required. As against 13 posts of different categories, 5 times numbers of candidates were required to be called for interview i.e. 65 candidates and as such in terms of Rule 5(3)(b) of the Rules of Procedure, 2002, J.P.S.C. short listed 65 candidates for interview in different category and accordingly decided to conduct the interview of the short listed candidates on 10.11.2016 and 11.11.2016. Thereafter, J.P.S.C uploaded the roll numbers of the short listed candidates for interview in web site of the Commission and information to the said effect was also given by the J.P.S.C. to the candidates through press communique. It has also informed to the candidates that they can down load their interview letters from the website of the Commission and date of interview has been fixed on 10.11.2016 and 11.11.2016. It has also informed to the candidates that if there is any objection against the list of short listed candidates, they can submit their objection up to 27.10.2016 before the Commission. Jharkhand Public Service Commission also conducted the interview of the short listed candidates for Assistant Mining Officer from 10.11.2016 to 11.11.2016 and after conducting the examination, J.P.S.C on the basis of assessment made by interview Board also prepared the result of the instant selection process and only recommendation is to be sent to the State Government. Jharkhand Public Service Commission also conducted the interview of the short listed candidates for Assistant Mining Officer from 10.11.2016 to 11.11.2016 and after conducting the examination, J.P.S.C on the basis of assessment made by interview Board also prepared the result of the instant selection process and only recommendation is to be sent to the State Government. Learned senior counsel further submits that since the numbers of valid application forms for instant selection process were less than 500 and as such the J.P.S.C, in terms of provisions contained in Rule 5(3) (a) and (b) of the Rules of Procedure, 2002 has short listed the candidates for interview and as such there is no illegality in short listing the candidates for interview in view of the provisions of the rules of aforesaid procedure. 5. To buttress his submission, learned senior counsel for the respondents-JPSC has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 (Union of India and Ors. vs. S. Vinodh Kumar and Ors.) wherein at paragraph 18, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that: “18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.” 6. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 (Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Baloji Badhavath and Ors.) wherein at paragraph 25, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that: “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 courts would not arbitrarily interfere therewith. The State framed Rules in the light of the decision of the High Court in S. Jaffer Saheb. Per se, it did not commit any illegality. The correctness of the said decision, as noticed hereinbefore, is not in question having attained finality. The matter, however, would be different if the said Rules per se are found to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a right to be considered there for. The matter, however, would be different if the said Rules per se are found to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a right to be considered there for. A procedure evolved for laying down the mode and manner for consideration of such a right can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair.” 7. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2006 SC 2339 (K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerla & Ors.) wherein at paragraph 54, it has been held as under: “54. In our opinion, the interview is the best mode of assessing the suitability of a candidate for a particular position. While the written examination will testify the candidates’ academic knowledge, the oral test alone can bring out or disclose his overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to take decisions, qualities of leadership etc. which are also essential for a judicial officer.” 8. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P-V appearing for the State has reiterated the grounds taken in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State submitted that as per settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court any person is not entitled to challenge the selection procedure once he has participated in the same and therefore on this sole ground the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the State by referring to Jharkhand Mining Engineering Services Rules, 2011 and amended notification dated 20.01.2016 has submitted that the amendment notification inter alia stipulates that in case of number of applications are not found adequate, the JPSC shall have the discretion to conduct selection process as per provision of the Rules of Procedure, 2002. As such it is apparent that the JPSC was vested with the power and authority to adopt Rule of Procedure, 2002 by the 2011 Rules itself as amended in the year 2016. 9. Before adverting to the rivalised submissions, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 5(3) (d) of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Rules of Procedure, 2002, which is quoted here-in-below: “5(3) (d). 9. Before adverting to the rivalised submissions, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 5(3) (d) of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Rules of Procedure, 2002, which is quoted here-in-below: “5(3) (d). Where the number of candidates exceeds 500, the candidates shall be short-listed for interview through a screening test to be conducted on the basis of objective type questions and the evaluation thereof shall be done in the premises of the Commission by OMR. ” 10. It would also be apposite to refer to Rule 8 of the Jharkhand Mining Engineering Services Rules, 2011, which is quoted here-in-below: “Rule.8. Procedure for direct recruitment.- The Commission shall advertise in such manner as they think fit the number of vacancies in the service as requisitioned by the Department of Mines & Geology Government of Jharkhand to be filled by Direct recruitment and shall receive applications from candidates eligible under Rules 4 to 7 for appointment to the service: Provided further that the Department of Mines & Geology shall consult the Department of Personnel; Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha regarding number of vacancies in the category of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class candidates as per reservation provisions of the State Government before forwarding the vacancies to the commission. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on consideration of the relevant materials, including the Rules of Procedure, 2002 and also Recruitment Rules 2011 and subsequent amendment, the procedure adopted by the J.P.S.C. does not appear to suffer from vice of discrimination or any unfairness. Since JPSC is supposed to act with all fairness and transparency, and in case if the action of the Commission is fraught with arbitrary exercise of power, in that eventuality the Court under Article 226 can step in to exercise power of judicial review. 12. In the instant case, short listing of the candidates has been made in consonance to the Rules of Procedure, 2002 and the petitioners whose name does not find place in short listing of the candidates, do not have any indefeasible right to challenge the selection procedure as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision Supra. The petitioners have failed to make out a case that they have been subjected to discrimination or they have been singled out as the JPSC has adopted a uniform procedure, which has been applicable to all the candidates. 13. The petitioners have failed to make out a case that they have been subjected to discrimination or they have been singled out as the JPSC has adopted a uniform procedure, which has been applicable to all the candidates. 13. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since, no ground for interference is made out as the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or hostile discrimination in the selection process by the JPSC or infraction of Rules of Procedure, 2002 so as to warrant interference by this Court. 14. Resultantly, the writ petitions sans merit are dismissed.