JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the result published by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'JPSC' in short), Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination (PT) – 2016 in pursuant to the Advertisement No. 23/2016 whereby and whereunder JPSC has declared result of those candidates as successful candidates who have obtained less marks than that of the petitioner. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to publish modified result for the said examination by fixing/declaring cut-off marks for the students in view of the fact that reservation is not applicable in preliminary examination. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to publish result of the petitioner amongst successful candidates and further to declare cut-off marks for qualifying in the said examination. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated are that pursuant to an advertisement no. 23/2016, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination – 2016 had been conducted by JPSC on 18.12.2016. Thereafter, on 23.02.2017, the results were also uploaded on the official website of JPSC. Petitioner had also appeared in the aforesaid examination and he obtained 232 marks in the said examination. However, it has been noticed by him that no cut-off marks had been published which would establish that petitioner has successfully qualified in the preliminary examination or not. On 02.03.2017, the Controller of Examination, JPSC issued a press release informing that there shall be no reservation in the Preliminary Examination. However, it has also been mentioned by them that there is no qualifying marks category wise or otherwise. On 17.03.2017, after uploading of Optical Marked Recognition Sheet, the petitioner was surprised to find that some of the successful candidates had obtained lesser marks than him and as such there was great anomaly in the result. By giving example of candidates successful in Preliminary Test like respondent no. 6 who had obtained only 206 marks, it is pointed out that though petitioner had obtained much more marks than him i.e. 232 marks, but he has been illegally debarred from the list of successful candidates. Petitioner has also given examples of other candidates like Amar Kumar Mishra, Kumar Prabhakar, Praveen Kumar, Prasant Kumar Srivastava, Rahul Deo Vasta and Ravindra Kumar Yadav who had obtained 206, 206, 206, 210, 210 and 212 marks respectively. Petitioner has also given examples of other candidates like Amar Kumar Mishra, Kumar Prabhakar, Praveen Kumar, Prasant Kumar Srivastava, Rahul Deo Vasta and Ravindra Kumar Yadav who had obtained 206, 206, 206, 210, 210 and 212 marks respectively. It is also pointed out that result has not been declared category wise nor any cut off marks merit has been prepared, which is admitted by the JPSC themselves. It is case of the petitioner that though no cut-off marks either category wise was given nor a common merit cut-off marks has been given/published but randomly and arbitrarily, respondents have published the result even to the extent that such candidates who have obtained lesser marks than the petitioner and such other candidates, their roll numbers find mentioned in the list of successful candidates and petitioner has been debarred for the reasons best known to them. It is contended that on earlier occasion JPSC used to declare qualifying marks/cut off marks which would enable the candidates to determine whether they are successful in the Examination or not. It is also pointed out that on the information under Right to Information, it has been categorically stated by JPSC that the results are being published on the basis of the Judgment rendered in the case of Balogi Badhavath Versus Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and in the case of Chhatar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. However, it has been categorically stated by the respondents that the results cannot be published category wise. It is case of the petitioner that respondents have not given category wise qualifying marks nor reservation is applicable in preliminary examination but there has to be qualifying marks or cutoff marks, which has to be set up and fixed by the respondents to determine eligibility criteria to be successful in the concerned examination, which the respondents have not done so far. It is also case of the petitioner that the candidates having lessor marks than him has been declared successful without any rhyme or reason. Though petitioner made representation to publish fresh result and also to declare cut-off marks but the respondents have not paid any heed to the same and hence this writ petition. 4. Mr. J.J. Sanga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that his case has not been considered because of the faulty policy decision of the State. Though petitioner made representation to publish fresh result and also to declare cut-off marks but the respondents have not paid any heed to the same and hence this writ petition. 4. Mr. J.J. Sanga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that his case has not been considered because of the faulty policy decision of the State. If the State comes with a clear cut policy decision in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhatar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1996) 11 SCC 742 and in the case of Balogi Badhavath Vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 , a fair and justifiable examination would be possible. Learned counsel further submits that the candidates who have obtained even lesser marks than the petitioner, have also been declared successful but petitioner has been declared unsuccessful for the reasons best known to the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that preliminary examination is not part of the main examination and as such, only basic eligibility criteria is fixed in the preliminary tests. It is further submitted by learned counsel that there can be no reservation in Preliminary Test however, there has to be a qualifiying marks or cut off marks to fix the criteria of successful candidates, but that has not been done in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have wrongly interpreted the Judgment of the Hon'ble Court as also policy of the State in conducting examination and publishing results. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents – State. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned GP-V submits that already decision has been taken by the State. Learned GP-V further draws attention of this Court towards Paragraphs-9 and 10 of the counter affidavit filed on 06.07.2017, which is necessary to be quoted hereunder:- “9. That it is stated and submitted that upon the declaration of preliminary exam, result of the Combined Civil Service Competitive Examination, 2016 by the Commission in the month of February this year, the Department received a number of grievances/complaint letters from various aspirants, groups of aspirants, etc.. That it is stated and submitted that upon the declaration of preliminary exam, result of the Combined Civil Service Competitive Examination, 2016 by the Commission in the month of February this year, the Department received a number of grievances/complaint letters from various aspirants, groups of aspirants, etc.. They all in common pointed to the following anomaly in published result – “A number of candidates belonging to the reserved categories who have secured equal or more marks than that of the selected candidates belonging to the unreserved category have not been declared successful by the Commission.” 10. That it is stated and submitted that the department sought the opinion of the learned Advocate General, Jharkhand through the Law Department, Government of Jharkhand in the above regard and based on his opinion made the following decision vide departmental Resolution No. 5562, Dated 19th of April, 2017. “All such candidates belonging to the reserved categories, whose obtained marks are equal or more than that of the last placed candidate in the list of the fifteen (15) times of the short-listed unreserved candidates (barring specially abled category) shall be considered successful for the Main Examination.” Learned GP-V further argues that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhatar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1996) 11 SCC 742 , State has already implemented observations and directions of the Hon'ble Court and as such, grievance of the petitioner is redressed. Learned GPV further argues that in the circumstances, this writ petition may be disposed of. He however submits that in view of policy decision of the State, JPSC is required to publish amended results. 6. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for respondents – JPSC submits that as per instruction of JPSC, Notification of the State Government will amount to changing terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement and as such the Notification itself is fallacious and not in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is fully satisfied with Notification of the State however submits that a direction may be given to publish fresh and amended result in terms of the said Notification. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is fully satisfied with Notification of the State however submits that a direction may be given to publish fresh and amended result in terms of the said Notification. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and others vs. State of Orissa and others reported in AIR 1996 SC page-352: (1995) 6 SCC 1 (paragraphs-34, 35, 36 and 37) has held as under: “34.The Selection Committee does not even have the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection nor can such power be assumed by necessary implication. In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, it was observed : (SCC pp. 180-81, para-44) “By necessary inference, there was no such power in the ASRB to add to the required qualifications. If such power is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm.” 35. Similarly, in Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, it was observed that the Selection Committee does not possess any inherent power to lay down its own standards in addition to what is prescribed under the Rules. Both these decisions were followed in Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and the limitations of the Selection Committee were pointed out that it had no jurisdiction to prescribe the minimum marks which a candidate had to secure at the viva voce. 36. It may be pointed out that rule-making function under Article 309 is legislative and not executive as was laid down by this Court in B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana. For this reason also, the Selection Committee or the Selection Board cannot be held to have jurisdiction to lay down any standard or basis for selection as it would amount to legislating a rule of selection.” 9. In view of aforementioned decisions, JPSC being the Selection Committee or the appointing agency, has nothing to do with the rules framed by the legislation and as such contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the JPSC is not tenable in the eye of law and is misconceived. JPSC cannot challenge modified Notification of the State Government. The role of JPSC is limited to the tune of conducting examination and publication of result thereof. JPSC cannot challenge modified Notification of the State Government. The role of JPSC is limited to the tune of conducting examination and publication of result thereof. Rules have to be framed by the legislature. 10. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties this court is of the considered view that grievances of the petitioner has already been redressed. It appears that State has acted in terms of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and following the guidelines and observations have come out with the aforesaid Notification. The amended Notification of the State of Jharkhand is fully in accordance with law and needs no interference by this Court. 11. In the circumstances, I hereby direct respondents–Jharkhand Public Service Commission to take steps for publication of amended result in terms of Notification. It is made clear that this is a serious issue as it relates to fate of thousands of aspirants who have appeared in the examination conducted by JPSC and as such it is expected that State as well as JPSC shall take immediate steps so that amended results, in terms of Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Notification issued by the State, may be published as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.