JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has, inter-alia, prayed for quashing the letter No. 5/Ni 1-02/07/198 dated 05.06.2008 issued by the Director (Higher Education) Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3) and further prayer has been made for holding and declaring that the aforesaid letter issued by the Respondent No. 3 is completely illegal, arbitrary and for ulterior purposes and further for direction upon the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (Respondent No. 4) to send the recommendation of the candidates from the approved panel prepared for the vacancies till 2009 and for direction upon the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to consider the case of the petitioner and recommend his name for his appointment in Commerce faculty against the existing vacancy of the said faculty. 2. The facts in brief, are that the petitioner is an M.Com Ist Class and has also qualified the Jharkhand State Eligibility Test for Lecturership held on 12.11.2006 in the subject of Commerce conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi. It has been further stated that an Advertisement No. 01/2007 dated 30.01.2007 was published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi in local daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ for appointment of Lecturers in the various colleges of different universities of Jharkhand State and the said advertisement was published for filling up of 1045 numbers of vacancies in the various colleges and Department of different Universities of Jharkhand State. It has been further submitted that petitioner being eligible in all respects made his application for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Commerce Department. It has been further averred that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission after thorough scrutiny of the candidature of the petitioner called the petitioner to appear in the Interview on 23.06.2007 vide letter No. 379/2007 issued by the respondent no. 5. It has been further submitted that the petitioner in pursuance of the said letter appeared in the interview alongwith all original certificates and related documents and the petitioner performed quite well in the said interview and was hopeful of being recommended for his appointment, but, the petitioner was disappointed as his name was not found place in the result dated 14.01.2008, wherein, recommendation for appointment of Lecturer in various subject in different colleges have been made. It has been further submitted that under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner made an application to get information regarding the cut off marks in the Commerce subject and the Public Information officer, J.P.S.C. vide letter dated 05.03.2009 informed the petitioner that he has obtained 54 marks in academic eligibility and 25 marks in the interview and that cut off marks for the general candidates in Commerce subject is 80 marks. From the aforesaid information, it is quite obvious that the petitioner has obtained 79 marks, whereas, the cut off marks in Commerce subject was 80 marks and was next to be considered in the zone of consideration as he has obtained 79 marks. It has been further submitted that inspite of the aforesaid recommendation sent by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, still various vacancies have been left out and the said vacancies was to be filled up through the approved panel, which also contains the name of the petitioner as the panel has been prepared by the expert who has conducted the interview of the candidates and was to be valid upto the vacancies till 2009. It has been further averred that before conducting interview of the petitioner and other candidates as per the guidelines of the University Grants Commission, State Level Eligibility Test (S.L.E.T.) for lecturership was to be conducted for probable vacancies in the State both existing as well as anticipated for next three years as evident from proforma duly signed by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. It has been further submitted that as evident from details of the vacancy position of lecturers in the Universities of Jharkhand State duly signed by the Registrar of all the three universities besides counter signature of the Director, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3) dated 22.02.2006 and there were sufficient number of vacancies in various universities as on 21.12.2005. It has further been submitted that even after the recommendation dated 14.01.2008 made by the J.P.S.C. there are several vacant posts of lecturers in different subjects including Commerce in the Universities of Jharkhand and as evident from the letter dated 21.05.2008 and the enclosure therein, there are vacancy in different subjects including Commerce. It has further been submitted that even after the recommendation dated 14.01.2008 made by the J.P.S.C. there are several vacant posts of lecturers in different subjects including Commerce in the Universities of Jharkhand and as evident from the letter dated 21.05.2008 and the enclosure therein, there are vacancy in different subjects including Commerce. It has been submitted that in spite of the aforesaid facts that there is a vacancy and Jharkhand Public Service Commission is bound to send recommendation for the empanelled candidates from the panel prepared by the expert in pursuance of the interview conducted for the same. However, Respondent No. 3 has issued a letter dated 05.06.2008 informing the respondent no. 5 that appointment process has been concluded and for new transaction, requisition will be transmitted. Left with no alternative, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the Respondent No. 3 is illegal, arbitrary, against the law and the said letter has been issued for ulterior purposes without any cogent reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, as on today, there are still sufficient number of vacancies in various subjects including the commerce subject in all the three Universities of Jharkhand State and as such, the petitioner who has obtained 79 marks in Commerce subject and in the said subject, the cut off marks has been 80, is bound to be considered for his appointment. Learned counsel further submits that the action on the part of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent no. 4 is bound to send recommendation of the candidates in various faculties for their appointment against the existing vacancies till 2009. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled to be considered and the respondent no. 4 is bound to send his recommendation in view of the fact that in Commerce Faculty, there is still vacancies of the year upto 2009. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents cannot be allowed to defeat the right of the petitioner who has legitimate expectation for his appointment against the existing vacancies and for which the expert has approved the panel. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents cannot be allowed to defeat the right of the petitioner who has legitimate expectation for his appointment against the existing vacancies and for which the expert has approved the panel. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents cannot be allowed to act illegally and stop the process of filling of the vacancies on the basis of approved panel which has been prepared by the authority keeping in view the existing vacancies till 2009. 4. A counter affidavit dated 12.05.2015 has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the allegations and averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been submitted that against the recommendation process of the J.P.S.C. Ranchi, this writ application was filed before this Court for making allegations that large number of mal-practices have been adopted in making recommendation of the teachers by the then members of the Commission and the State Government was also reported about the said irregularities and against the said irregularities committed in making the recommendation of teachers, a case has been lodged and the C.B.I. enquiry is going on in the said case. It has been further averred that when the Commission declared its final result of successful candidates for making recommendation of appointment to the university, the process of recommendation stood completed, therefore, it is proper for the Commission to initiate fresh process for the recommendation of candidates for appointment. No additional result can be published from the old panel list which is disputed and against which a case has been filed and C.B.I. enquiry is going on. It has been further submitted that as per the provisions made in Section 57 (2)(b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (Adapted) the merit list prepared by the Commission remains valid only for a period of one year from the date of its approval. Hence, as per the provisions of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, the merit list is not valid after expiry of one year from the date of its approval. Hence, as per the provisions of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, the merit list is not valid after expiry of one year from the date of its approval. It has been further submitted that the case of Smt. Bharti Singh is not identical to the case of the petitioner, as Smt.Bharti Singh had obtained more marks than the last cut-off marks of general category candidates, whereas in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has obtained less marks than the cut-off marks and from the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the case of the petitioner is without merit and hence, this writ application is fit to be dismissed. 5. Repudiating the contentions made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5, contending, therein, that the records pertaining to appointment of Lecturers are not available in the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as J.P.S.C.) and previously State government passed order for Vigilance Enquiry in the appointment of lecturers and now this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to hand over the said investigation to the C.B.I. therefore, the Commission is not in a position to make assertion on the merit of the case pending disposal of the various enquiries in this whole matter. It has been further submitted that on the basis of records available in the Commission, it is stated that in compliance of the order dated 26.06.2006, passed in W.P. (S) No. 1059 of 2006, J.P.S.C. after publication of J.E.T. Examination result, issued Advertisement No. 01/07, by which applications were invited from the eligible candidates for considering their candidature for appointment on the post of Lecturer. It has been averred that in pursuance to Section 57 (2) (b) of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 (Amended up to date) the selection was to be made only on the basis of interview. It has been submitted that after publication of the Advertisement, several candidates submitted their applications before the J.P.S.C. for consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post of Lecturer and after completion of interview, the J.P.S.C. made recommendation on 14.01.2008 of successful candidates to the concerned Universities. It has been further submitted that the J.P.S.C. made recommendation of successful candidates on 14.01.2008. It has been further submitted that the J.P.S.C. made recommendation of successful candidates on 14.01.2008. It has been averred that on the basis of recommendation made by the J.P.S.C. on 14.01.2008, the appointment of recommended candidates was made by the concerned Universities. It has been submitted that on 05.06.2008, the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand informed the Secretary, J.P.S.C. that appointment for Sessions 2007-08 has already been completed and transaction has also been closed and it has also been intimated to the J.P.S.C. that fresh requisition shall be sent. It has been further submitted that the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi has also requested the vice Chancellors of Ranchi University, Ranchi, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and S.K.M. University, Dumka to send the list of the experts to the J.P.S.C. It has been submitted that the Officer on Special Duty, Governor Secretariat, vide his letter dated 26.11.2008, also directed the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand to take appropriate steps in the matter in the light of letter dated 05.06.2008 and in the light of the aforesaid facts, it would be evident that the State Government has already closed the selection process. 6. A reply/rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 has been filed, wherein, it has been inter-alia, submitted that the J.P.S.C. has admitted that the record pertaining to appointment of Lecturers are not available in J.P.S.C. as it is under the enquiry and therefore, the Commission is not in a position to make assertion on the merit of the case pending disposal of the various enquiries. It has been further submitted that there were 47 vacant posts in Commerce subject in various Universities of Jharkhand State as on 31.12.2005, as evident from vacancy position of the posts of Lecturer in the Universities of Jharkhand State enclosed at Annexure-6 to the writ application and against the said vacancy in Commerce subject in various Universities of Jharkhand State, J.P.S.C. made recommendation of 20 General candidates and 16 reserved category candidates for their appointment in various Universities of Jharkhand State, as evident from the Lecturer’s appointment result published on 15.1.2008 in daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’. It has been further averred that there are still about five posts for General category in Commerce subject, is lying vacant in different Universities of Jharkhand State and the petitioner who has obtained 79 marks, one mark less than the cut-off marks for General category candidates is entitled to be considered for his appointment against the said vacancy. It has been further submitted that the respondents have illegally issued a letter dated 5.6.2008 informing the respondent no. 5 that the process of appointment in the Universities of Jharkhand against the vacant posts for the session 2007-08 has been concluded just after four months of publication of result/recommendation without any cogent reason and the said letter has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ application. It has also been submitted that it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the case of Dr. Kumari Bharti Singh for her appointment as Lecturer in English has been considered by the respondents in pursuance of the direction of this Court. 7. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions of the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to tinker to the reliefs sought for by the writ petitioner, due to the following facts and reasons:- (i) As per the provisions made in Section 57 (2) (b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (Adapted) the merit list prepared by the Commission remains valid only for a period of one year from the date of its approval. Hence, as per the provisions of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, the merit list is not valid after expiry of one year from the date of its approval. (ii) The State Government has already closed the selection process. (iii) The case of Smt. Bharti Singh is not identical to the case of the petitioner, as Smt. Bharti Singh had obtained more marks than the last cut-off marks of general category candidates, whereas in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has obtained less marks than the cut-off marks and from the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the case of the petitioner is without merit. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.