JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. - Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Navnit Prakash, learned A.C. to S.C.-III for the State and Mr. Sanjay Piparwall, learned counsel appearing for the J.P.S.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to advertisement no. 13 of 2008 which was published for appointment on the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif), the petitioner applied for the post. The petitioner was declared successful in preliminary examination and in the mains examination also. However, after the final examination viva voce was conducted and final result was published, but, the name of the petitioner was not there. 3. The petitioner was applied for information under the RTI before the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (J.P.S.C.) whereby it was informed to the petitioner that the petitioner has got 82 marks in mains and 8 marks in interview i.e. total 90 marks. The main contention of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the viva voce total marks was fixed as 20 marks which is not in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab & Ors, (1991) 1 SCC 662 . He referred paragraph 33 of the said judgment which is extracted herein below: "33. In our view Ashok Kumar Yadav case clinches the issues raised before us and being a decision given by four Judges is also binding on us. That was a case relating to public employment and a direction was given to all the Public Service Commissions to follow the marks allocated for viva voce test as done by the UPSC which was 12.2 per cent of the total marks. Ashok Kumar Yadav case was decided in 1985 and we fail to understand as to why the State of Punjab did not follow the same for making selections in 1989 for the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors. It is no doubt correct that the selection of Taxation and Excise Inspectors is done by a subordinate selection body and not by Public Service Commission yet no valid reason has been given before us by learned counsel for the respondents as to why the principle enunciated in Ashok Kumar Yadav case should not be applied in these cases as well. Even if Ashok Kumar Yadav case may not in terms apply in the cases before us to the extent of laying down 12.2 per cent of the total marks for viva voce test which was made applicable for selections to be made by UPSC, we deem it proper to lay down after taking in view the dictum of all the authorities decided so far that the percentage of viva voce test in the present cases at 25 per cent of the total marks is arbitrary and excessive. There could be no gainsaying that viva voce test cannot be totally dispensed with, but taking note of the situation and conditions prevailing in our country, it would not be reasonable to have the percentage of viva voce marks more than 15 per cent of the total marks in the selection of candidates fresh from college/school for public employment by direct recruitment where the rules provided for a composite process of selection namely written examination and interview." 4. Learned counsel for the J.P.S.C. submits that in paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 2 & 3, it is stated that in view of the Clause-7 of the Advertisement No. 13/08, minimum qualifying marks category wise for the written examination has been mentioned: 1) Unreserved Category - 45 marks out of 100 marks. 2) OBC Category - 40 marks out of 100 marks. 3) ST/SC Category - 35 marks out of 100 marks. In paragraph 9 of the said affidavit, it is disclosed that in view of the Clause-9 of the Advertisement that minimum qualifying marks category wise for interview has also been mentioned, which reads as follows:- 1) Unreserved Category - 10 marks out of 20 marks. 2) OBC Category - 08 marks out of 20 marks. 3) ST/SC Category - 06 marks out of 20 marks. 5. It is further submitted that the 10 marks which is qualifying marks for the general category whereas the petitioner has obtained 8 marks i.e. why the petitioner was not declared successful in the final result. It is submitted that in view of the final result, the J.P.S.C. also made final recommendation before the State Govt. for appointment of successful candidates and the successful candidates have also been appointed by the State Govt. on the post of Civil Judges Junior Division (Munsif). It is submitted that in view of the final result, the J.P.S.C. also made final recommendation before the State Govt. for appointment of successful candidates and the successful candidates have also been appointed by the State Govt. on the post of Civil Judges Junior Division (Munsif). It is further disclosed that appointment pursuant to said advertisement has already been completed and recommended. It is further disclosed that advertisement no. 4/13 was issued by the J.P.S.C. in December 2013 on the same criteria and recommendation for appointment pursuant to advertisement no. 4/13 has been completed in the year 2015. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the marks was already prescribed in the advertisement. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that in the advertisement marks of interview has already been prescribed. The petitioner pursuant to that examination was declared successful in the main examination, it is well settled that the competent authority has power to fix the marks and the case of the petitioner is not fit to be considered on this gourd. This candidate was well aware about the terms and conditions of the advertisement and he appeared in the examination and as such the petitioner cannot allow to challenge or question the same in this regard reference made to the case of Union of India & others Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar & others, (2007) 8 SCC 100 . For the reference paragraph 18 of the said judgment is reflected hereunder:- "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. (See Muninda Kumar v. Rajiv Govil) (See also Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission)." 8. In view of the above facts and reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed.