JUDGMENT : 1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No.2141 of 2019 2 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 193 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Heard. 4. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No.2141 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 193 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.96 of 2019 6. This instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 22.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2385 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed, declining to interfere with the order as contained in 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. 7. The brief fact of the case, which requires to be referred herein, reads hereunder as: The writ petitioner is M.Com 1st Class and has qualified the Jharkhand State Eligibility Test for Lecturership held on 12.11.2006 in the subject of Commerce conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘J.P.S.C.’). One advertisement was published being Advertisement No.01/2007 dated 30.01.2007 by the J.P.S.C., inviting applications for appointment of Lecturers in the various colleges of the different universities of the State of Jharkhand. The said advertisement was published for filling up of 1045 numbers of vacancies in the various colleges. The writ petitioner being eligible in all respects made his application for appointment to the post of ‘Lecturer’ in Commerce Department. The J.P.S.C has called upon the writ petitioner to appear in the interview, in which the writ petitioner participated, but he was not found fit to be recommended in the list of the successful candidates for such appointment. The writ petitioner obtained information under Right to Information Act and came to know about the cut off marks in the Commerce subject as also about his marks. The writ petitioner obtained information under Right to Information Act and came to know about the cut off marks in the Commerce subject as also about his marks. The writ petitioner was informed that he has obtained 54 marks in the academic eligibility and 25 marks in the interview and the cut off marks for the General Category in Commerce subject is 80. Since the writ petitioner has obtained 79 marks which is less than the cut off marks of 80 and as such, he has not been recommended for such selection. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that still several vacancies have been left out which ought to have been filled up and if decision would have been taken, the writ petitioner, who is short of only one marks from the list of selected candidates, ought to have been recommended for such appointment. The State-respondent appeared and filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating therein that against the recommendation process of the J.P.S.C., Ranchi, large number of malpractices has been conducted in making recommendation of the teachers and the State Government was also reported about such irregularities, hence the matter was referred for enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation which is going on. Further, it has been contended therein that the process of recommendation has stood completed and as such, it is not proper for the Commission to initiate fresh process for recommendation of the candidate for appointment. Further it has been stated that as per the provision under 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 aforesaid provision of law, the merit list is not valid after expiry of one year from the date of its approval. The contention about the case of Smt. Bharti Singh has been referred by taking plea that her case is not identical to the writ petitioner, as because the said Bharti Singh had obtained more marks than the cut off marks of the General Category candidate, whereas in the case of the writ petitioner, he has obtained less marks than the cut off marks and hence the writ petitioner has been found less meritorious and has not been found fit to be recommended for such selection. The respondent nos.4 and 5-J.P.S.C has filed counter affidavit, wherein plea has been taken that the record pertaining to selection of Lecturers, is not available in the office of the J.P.S.C, since the record has been now in possession of the Central Bureau of Investigation. However, it has been averred that in pursuant to the provision of Section 57(2) (b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 the selection was to be made only on the basis of interview. The candidates have been called upon, respective merits of one or other candidates have been assessed and as per the policy decision, cut off marks has been fixed, but the petitioner has been found to have secured less marks than the cut off marks. Further, it has been stated that since the appointment was for the Session 2007-08 which has already been completed and the transaction has also been closed with an intimation to the office of J.P.S.C by the State Government that fresh requisition shall be sent, in that view of the matter, at this stage no direction can be given to the respondents for the said post. 8. Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted by refuting the contention of the respondents, putting reliance upon the communication dated 05.06.2008, whereby and whereunder the life of the panel has been said to be closed before completion of the period of one year and as such, the plea of the closure of the panel for the period of one year is not fit to be accepted. The writ Court has considered the rival submission advanced on behalf of the parties and dismissed the writ petition on the following reasons, which reads hereunder as: (i) As per the provision 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. 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, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has reiterated the ground about the communication dated 05.06.2008, in response to the plea taken by the respondents about closure of the selection process due to lapse of the period of one year and the case of Smt. Bharti Singh in parity to the writ petitioner as also contention has been raised that still the vacancies are there, therefore, a direction is required to be passed upon the authority to fill up entire vacancies and in that view of the matter the cut off marks of 80 will be reduced to the lesser marks, making the writ petitioner fit to be recommended for such selection. According to him, this aspect of the matter has not rightly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge by dismissing the writ petition. 10. Per contra, Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned A.C to Sr. S.C-II as also Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the J.P.S.C have defended the order passed by the writ Court on the ground that when the J.P.S.C has fixed the cut off marks by taking a policy decision in this regard and hence, if any candidate obtains marks less than the cut off marks, the candidate will be treated to be not fit to be recommended and taking that view of the matter into consideration, the writ petitioner since has obtained only 79 marks, therefore, he has rightly not been recommended for the said post. Further, it has been contended by refuting the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant about the communication dated 05.06.2008 by which the panel which has been closed during the period of one year and as such, the validity of the panel said to have been expired after lapse of one year is not correct, as because it would be evident from the communication dated 05.06.2008 that the selection process shall be closed within the period of one year. But, the aforesaid contention cannot be said to be acceptable in view of the fact that when the respondent-J.P.S.C has fixed the cut off marks of 80, any candidate securing less than the said marks cannot have a right to claim for recommendation for appointment on such post. It has further been submitted that even if the vacancies are there and if the cut off marks has been fixed, there cannot a direction be given to fill up candidates by reducing the cut off marks since the merit is the paramount consideration for selection to the teaching posts. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, learned Single Judge after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, is right in dismissing the writ petition, which requires no interference. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials available on record and also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The admitted facts herein, is that the writ petitioner has participated in the process of selection as Lecturer in Commerce Department for different colleges situated within the State of Jharkhand, in pursuant to the Advertisement No.01/2007. The writ petitioner has also participated in the interview and on production of merit list of one or the other candidates, he secured 79 marks. The J.P.S.C has fixed a parameter for making recommendation by way of policy decision, wherein 80 marks has been fixed as cut off marks for general category candidate. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has secured 79 marks, which is less than the cut off marks of 80 and therefore, he has been found not fit to be recommended for such post. The writ petitioner has agitated the aforesaid ground by filing writ petition before this Court, invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising the point about arbitrariness and discrimination. The writ petitioner has agitated the aforesaid ground by filing writ petition before this Court, invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising the point about arbitrariness and discrimination. While on the other hand, the respondent-State as also the J.P.S.C have contested the case by taking the plea about securing less marks and lapse of the validity of the panel since long. 12. This Court on the basis of the admitted fact as discussed hereinabove, is of the view that a candidate merely on account of submitting application for consideration of candidature has got no indefeasible right to claim appointment on such post. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 wherein by taking aid of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 by holding therein that mere inclusion of the candidate’s name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. It is settled position of law that the recruiting agency has got power by way of policy decision for making such selection, as has been settled in the case of Chandigarh Administration through the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie and Ors. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 645 wherein at para 22 it has been held as under: “22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. (See J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P. and P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General) In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. (See J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P. and P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General) In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of PhD is unreasonable.” The J.P.S.C on the basis of aforesaid settled position of law has taken a policy decision by fixing cut off marks of 80 for general category candidate. The writ petitioner has secured 79 marks, hence not found fit to be recommended for such selection. The contention of the writ petitioner that vacancies are available and if aforesaid vacancies would be filled up, automatically the cut off marks of 80 will reduce to lesser marks and in that case the writ petitioner will be selected. This contention is not acceptable to this Court for the reason that when the J.P.S.C has fixed a policy decision for the cut off marks, the same cannot be directed to be reduced, otherwise the same will lead to compromising with the merit of selection and further, for the reason that such policy decision taken by the recruiting agency cannot be interfered by this Court, the said policy decision has not been assailed by the writ petitioner. Further contention of the appellant-writ petitioner is that the validity period of the panel as has been said to be a reason for dismissal of the writ petition in view of the provision of Section 57(2) (b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, cannot be said to be a proper ground in view of the communication dated 05.06.2008. We have examined the communication dated 05.06.2008, wherefrom we have found that the requisition was sent by the State Government for the Session 2007-08 for filling up of vacancies in the teaching faculty of different universities situated in the State Government, wherein it has been stated that the process of selection has already been completed and therefore, the transaction of selection is closed and in that view of the matter, if any requisition will again be sent new process will be initiated. The content of the aforesaid communication dated 05.06.2008 suggests that the process of selection has been closed and once the recruitment process has been closed, there cannot be a situation to say about the validity of the panel to remain in force for a period of one year. Even, accepting the aforesaid argument of the writ petitioner then also the writ petitioner has failed to make out a case, since he has obtained 79 marks, while the cut of marks has been fixed 80 which cannot be reduced, compromising with the merit of one or other candidates. The writ petitioner is claiming about the validity of panel, but here the said contention is not of any relevance as the question of validity of panel will only arise, if the panel has been made on the basis of the merit list, awaiting for the vacancies to be arises in case of non-joining of the post or any other valid reason. But, we have gathered from the materials available on record that it is not a case of preparation of panel and hence there is no question of keeping the life of panel for a period of one year as would appear from the communication dated 05.06.2008 wherefrom it is evident that the recruitment process has already been closed. Further contention of the writ petitioner is that the vacancies are available, so if a direction would have been issued by the writ Court, in that view of the matter, the cut off marks will be reduced. This argument is also not acceptable for the reason that even if for the notified vacancy, there cannot be a direction by the writ Court in exercise of power of judicial review to fill up entire posts since the same depends upon the question of merit of one or other candidates and the policy decision of the recruiting agency, so there cannot be compromise in efficiency of the candidate. If the contention of the writ petitioner would be accepted, in that condition, the cut off marks which has been fixed by way of policy decision by the recruiting agency-J.P.S.C, would have to be directed to be reduced which cannot be allowed by passing a direction by the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. If the contention of the writ petitioner would be accepted, in that condition, the cut off marks which has been fixed by way of policy decision by the recruiting agency-J.P.S.C, would have to be directed to be reduced which cannot be allowed by passing a direction by the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. This Court, after considering the facts in entirety, as discussed hereinabove, and taking into consideration the reasons assigned in the order impugned for dismissal of the writ petition, is of the view that no error has been committed by the writ Court, requiring interference by this Court in this intra-court appeal. 14. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.