JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matters has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. 2. These appeals were tagged together for its analogous hearing as per the prayer made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties since the issues involved in these appeals are identical and against the common judgment passed by learned Single Judge, as such the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. These intra-court appeals under Clause 10 of Letters Patent are preferred against the common order/judgment dated 07.06.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1533 of 2020 [W.P. (S) No. 494 of 2020 and batch matters], whereby and whereunder writ petitions have been allowed with following directions: (i). The merit list prepared by the JPSC is held to be illegal as marks of Paper-I was added in the merit list and Clause-13 of the advertisement with regard to minimum qualifying marks in each paper has not been followed and consequence thereof, the merit list prepared by the Commission is, hereby, quashed. (ii). Consequently, the appointments made without following the procedure held to be nullity. (iii). The JPSC is directed to prepare a fresh merit list with reference to marks in written test and interview without adding the marks of Paper-I in the merit list considering minimum qualifying marks in each paper and thereafter finalize the selection in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and recommend the same to the State of Jharkhand within four weeks thereafter and in furtherance, the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand is directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the successful candidates based upon the fresh merit list forthwith. (Emphasis supplied) 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short ‘JPSC’) has been conducting competitive examination for Combined Civil Services for the State of Jharkhand and the issues involved in these appeals pertain to 6th JPSC Combined Civil Services Examination-2016. In the year 2012, the State had constituted an Expert Committee under the chairmanship of Sri V.S. Dubey, former Chief Secretary, Jharkhand with other members for giving their recommendation on revision of examination pattern of Combined Civil Services Examination which submitted its report on 02.04.2013. The said report was considered by the JPSC and unanimously recommended for its acceptance with the stipulations as narrated in the minutes of the meeting of the JPSC dated 02.04.2013, which reads as under: “The commission unanimously recommends to the Government acceptance of the V.S. Dubey, Expert Committee report with the following stipulations: 1). 100 marks Language paper of Mains be of qualifying nature only in which a candidate shall secure minimum 30 marks out of Combined Hindi & English (10th Standard) paper of 100 marks. 2). The Revised Examination Pattern Syllabus shall be effective from the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination only so that candidates get clear 15 months to prepare as per the revised pattern and syllabus. The next 5th Combined Civil Services Examination will be on the existing [Mains] syllabus. 3). Before issuing the notification of revised syllabus Jharkhand Public Service Commission shall get the syllabus of 9 Regional Languages and Hindi, Urdu, Sanskrit, Oriya, Bangla and English Language & Literature finalized by Expert Committee as suggested by V.S. Dubey Committee in its final meeting in which the Expert Committee report was adopted.” Emphasis supplied. The State Government accepted the resolution of the JPSC and thereafter advertisement was published by the JPSC for filling up the vacancies for ‘Jharkhand Public Service Commission Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination-2016’ vide Advertisement no.23/2016. The writ petitioners, claiming themselves to be eligible and complying with the terms and conditions as stipulated in the advertisement, participated in the process of selection. The selection process was decided to be conducted in two stages i.e. Preliminary Test and Main examination, followed by interview. Petitioners participated in the Preliminary examination, in which, they were declared successful. After being declared successful in the Preliminary examination, they participated in the Main examination. The selection process was decided to be conducted in two stages i.e. Preliminary Test and Main examination, followed by interview. Petitioners participated in the Preliminary examination, in which, they were declared successful. After being declared successful in the Preliminary examination, they participated in the Main examination. Further case of the writ petitioners is that in the meanwhile, the State Government had also appointed one High Power Committee, namely, Saryu Rai Committee, which has made its recommendations on various aspects however, recommendation regarding raising the total marks of language Paper-II in the Main Examination from 100 to 150, with some other recommendations, was accepted by the State Government and it was notified vide Resolution as contained in Memo No. 7052 dated 17.08.2016. The said recommendation was also duly incorporated in Advertisement no. 23/2016 and its syllabus which became part and parcel and conditions for 6th Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination. So far as subject matter of Paper-I (General Hindi and General English) in the Main Examination is concerned, in the original advertisement it has been mentioned that Paper –I is qualifying in which candidate will have to secure only 30 marks. It has been stated since Paper-I was of qualifying nature and its marks was not supposed to be added for preparation of merit list, while marks of other Papers were to be added for merit list, the writ petitioners made effort to secure only 30 qualifying marks to make themselves eligible to appear in the Main Examination. But the JPSC changed the said parameter and included the marks obtained in Paper-I (General English and General Hindi)in the total marks for preparing the merit list, basis upon which result of Main Examination was published wherein the writ petitioners were declared unsuccessful by their wrongful exclusion as the marks of the candidates who were declared successful was based upon the marks after adding the marks of Paper-I, even though the marks obtained in the said Paper is only of qualifying nature, as per the Clause stipulated in the original advertisement, which requires only 30 marks in Paper-I being qualifying in nature. In this regard, contention of the writ petitioners is that the marks of Paper-I ought not to have been included in preparation of the merit list since the same as per the syllabus was of 10th standard while the standard of other compulsory subject was of graduate level. In this regard, contention of the writ petitioners is that the marks of Paper-I ought not to have been included in preparation of the merit list since the same as per the syllabus was of 10th standard while the standard of other compulsory subject was of graduate level. It is case of the writ petitioners that the JPSC has further committed illegality in preparing the merit list taking the qualifying marks of aggregate of all subjects together without considering as to whether the candidates have secured minimum qualifying marks in each compulsory subjects in Main Examination or not. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the advertisement contains a Clause that the total marks of the examination will be of 1050, marks inclusive of 100 marks of Paper-I which is qualifying in nature in which only 30 marks is to be obtained making it mandatory and, therefore, the marks obtained by the successful candidate, the appellants herein who were declared successful on the basis of marks obtained in Paper I and the merit list was prepared taking the total marks of 1050, is illegal. According to writ petitioners, the respondent-JPSC again disturbed and unsettled the position with respect to the condition as contained in Clause-13 of the Advertisement no. 23/2016, extract of which as mentioned in impugned order reads as under: “13. Minimum qualifying marks for Preliminary and Main Examination: Unreserved 40% Backward Class-I 34% Backward Class-II 36.5% Scheduled Caste/Tribe and woman 32% It is averred at Clause No. 13 of the advertisement that determination of minimum qualifying as prescribed above shall be applicable on competitive examination of all services/class for different reserved category in relation to all written examination (objective or subjective). However, in the Main Examination all the candidates have to secure 30 marks mandatorily in Paper-I (General Hindi and General English). The aforesaid stipulation fell for consideration before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5046 of 2018 [Gaurav Priyadarshi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] with W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2018 [Joy Guria vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] so far its applicability into Preliminary test of the JPSC Combined Civil Services Completive Examination- 2016 is concerned, as also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9217 of 2018, wherein, this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the qualifying criteria shall apply on each subjects separately and not on combined basis. It has been further stated that the above referred Clause-13 speaks of Preliminary and Main examination both, thus the issue has been settled that the qualifying marks prescribed for each category will apply for each subjects and shall not be taken as aggregate marks obtained by a candidate in all subjects. It was further case before the writ Court that contrary to the above conditions and stipulation, the respondent-JPSC relaxed the said conditions and even included such good number of candidates in the merit list/gradation list who did not obtain minimum qualifying marks applicable to their category in one or the other compulsory papers in the Main examination and thereby even those candidates who have qualified in all papers and have obtained more marks in compulsory papers but have obtained less marks in Paper-I were declared as unsuccessful and ousted from the merit list/gradation list whereas the candidates who did not qualify in each compulsory paper were included in the merit list; thereby gross injustice meted out to the petitioners. The final merit list was published on 21.04.2020. On theses backgrounds, the writ petitioners, who became unsuccessful in the final result of 6th Civil Services Competitive Examination, being aggrieved by the action of the Commission approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the selection process by filing different writ petitions before this Court. The successful candidates were noticed through paper publication. Pursuant thereto, they appeared through their counsel and filed Vakalatnama. Likewise, the State was represented by learned Advocate General and the J.P.S.C by Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned retained counsel for the Commission. They have taken the stand that there is no illegality in the process of selection since the selection has been conducted on the basis of terms and conditions of the advertisement. It was contended by the JPSC that the preliminary examination was conducted on 18.12.2016 and the result was published on 23.02.2017. Only those candidates were declared successful who have secured minimum qualifying marks in respective categories. It was contended by the JPSC that the preliminary examination was conducted on 18.12.2016 and the result was published on 23.02.2017. Only those candidates were declared successful who have secured minimum qualifying marks in respective categories. The State Government issued circular dated 19.04.2017 by which decision was taken to declare all such candidates belonging to reserved categories whose marks are equal or more than that of the last selected candidate in the list of the 15 times of the shortlisted unreserved category candidates (barring specially able category) shall be considered successful for Main Examination. The subject matter of said circular was challenged before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017 (Deb Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), which was disposed of vide order dated 25.07.2017. After passing of the order in the said writ petition, the JPSC published amended result of Preliminary examination on 11.08.2017 by which 6103 candidates were declared successful. Thereafter, the State Government again issued circular dated 12.02.2018 by which it was decided that those candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks as mentioned in circular dated 27.11.2012 will be deemed to be selected for the Main examination. The said circular dated 12.02.2018 was challenged before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), which was dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2018. After passing of the order in the said writ petition, the JPSC again published the 2nd revised result of Preliminary examination on 06.08.2018, whereby, 34,634 candidates, who secured minimum qualifying marks in each paper as per their respective categories, were declared successful. The order dated 18.05.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018, which was allowed vide order dated 21.10.2019 and the impugned judgment Dated 18.05.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2008 was set aside. The order dated 18.05.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018, which was allowed vide order dated 21.10.2019 and the impugned judgment Dated 18.05.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2008 was set aside. One candidate, namely, Rakesh Kumar, who belongs to unreserved category and was not declared successful in the 2nd revised result of Preliminary examination dated 06.08.2018 as he has not secured minimum qualifying marks in each paper has filed Civil Appeal No. 9217 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was disposed of vide order dated 10.09.2018 observing that the petitioner has in fact obtained 40 per cent in both the papers taken together, the appellant shall be allowed to appear for the Main examination and since the petitioner/appellant was alone before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was made clear that anything said in the order will not be treated as a precedent. After passing of the said order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9217 of 2018, another case was filed by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2018 (Joy Guria & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) with a prayer to declare the petitioners successful in 2nd revised Preliminary examination result dated 06.08.2018 in view of the fact that they have secured more aggregate marks in both the papers taken together in spite of that they have not been declared successful in the 2nd revised Preliminary examination result. The JPSC appeared in that writ petition and filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that only those candidates category-wise have been declared successful for their appearance in the Main examination who have secured minimum qualifying marks in each papers i.e. Paper-I and Paper-II. In the counter affidavit the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9217 of 2018 dated 10.09.2018 was also enclosed. Writ Petition being W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2018 was heard along with W.P.(S) No. 5046 of 2018 and vide order dated 20.12.2018, both the writ petitions were dismissed by the Co-ordinate learned Single Bench of this Court. Writ Petition being W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2018 was heard along with W.P.(S) No. 5046 of 2018 and vide order dated 20.12.2018, both the writ petitions were dismissed by the Co-ordinate learned Single Bench of this Court. Further case of the JPSC is that review petition being Review Petition (C) No. 36 of 2019 was filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court for reviewing order dated 10.09.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 9217 of 2018 on the ground that 40% marks has to be secured by the unreserved category candidate in each paper. It has further been submitted that during the pendency of L.P.A. No.399 of 2018, the JPSC announced the date of Main Examination of 6th Combined Civil Services Examination scheduled to be held from 28.01.2019 to 01.02.2019 which was also brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court, but no stay order was granted. On 28.01.2019, the Main examination was started and on 29.01.2019, Review Petition (C) No.36 of 2019 filed by the JPSC was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that after conducting the Main examination, the JPSC started the evaluation of answer-sheets of the candidates of the Main Examination through examiner. It was contended that the result of the Preliminary examination was published by the JPSC on the basis of minimum qualifying marks in each paper. Further stand of the JPSC in W.P. (S) No.4188 of 2018 was that the candidates were required to secure minimum qualifying marks in each paper but the stand of the JPSC to the effect that 40% marks has to be secured by the candidates in each paper has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (C) No. 36 of 2019. It was submitted that the State Government vide its resolution dated 27.11.2012 fixed the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 40% for unreserved category, 36.5% for Backward Category, 34% for EBC-I and 32% for SC, ST and female category candidates. He also submitted that the Combined Civil Services Examination is governed by the Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1951, which has already been adopted by the Government of Jharkhand vide notification No. 6184 dated 09.11.2002 in terms of Bihar Reorganization Act. He also submitted that the Combined Civil Services Examination is governed by the Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1951, which has already been adopted by the Government of Jharkhand vide notification No. 6184 dated 09.11.2002 in terms of Bihar Reorganization Act. He referred Rule 16(b) of the Rules, 1951 and submitted that the total marks obtained at the written examination and not the marks obtained in any particular subject shall be taken into consideration while preparing the merit list. It was further submitted by the JPSC that Saryu Rai Committee had made recommendation for enhancement of marks from 1000 marks to 1050 marks which includes 100 marks of Paper-I. He also submitted that in view of Clause-12(B) of the advertisement, minimum qualifying marks were prescribed. In view of the aforesaid criteria, as mentioned in the advertisement, the marks of Paper-I was to be added/included while preparing the result of the Main examination and accordingly the marks of Paper-I was added while preparing the merit list of the Main examination. So far as 5th Combined Civil Services Examination is concerned, it has specifically been mentioned that marks of qualifying Paper-I will not be added. The State was represented by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondents-State appeared before the writ Court and adopted the argument advanced on behalf of JPSC. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and putting reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court has come to the conclusive finding by taking into consideration the applicable terms and conditions of the advertisement to the effect that qualifying marks in each subject is mandatory and, therefore, allowed the writ petitions, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeals preferred by successful candidate. 4. The matter was heard on 10.08.2021, on which date following order was passed: “I.A. No.3823 of 2021 (in LPA No.204 of 2021) This Interlocutory Application has been filed for impleading the persons as described in paragraph 4 as respondent Nos. 9 to 310 in view of the fact that all these persons were parties-respondents to the writ petition but they have not preferred appeals. This Court does not find any reason not to allow them to be impleaded as Performa respondents Nos.9 to 310. 9 to 310 in view of the fact that all these persons were parties-respondents to the writ petition but they have not preferred appeals. This Court does not find any reason not to allow them to be impleaded as Performa respondents Nos.9 to 310. In the result, this Interlocutory Application is allowed subject to any objection raised in future by any aggrieved person. Looking to the Corona days, Office is directed to make necessary entries in the cause title of the memo of appeal within a period of one week. Further, it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that several writ petitions were filed. Common order was passed by the learned Single Judge. However, the respondents of some of the writ petitions have not preferred appeals, thus, those writ petitioners are not parties to the appeals. Therefore, there can be a situation that the judgment of the learned Single Judge will attain finality so far those writ petitioners are concerned and if the appeals are allowed, there would be possibility conflicting directions in the matter. Accordingly, we would direct that all the writ petitioners, irrespective of the fact that appeals have been preferred or not, be impleaded as party-respondents in the present appeals. L.P.A. Nos. 201/2021, 203/2021 & 204/2021 Heard the learned counsels appearing for the appellants. It appears that notice is required to be issued to the respondents, save and except the proforma respondent before the Writ Court. Hence, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General, waives notice on behalf of the respondents-State in all cases. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel, waives notice on behalf of the respondents-JPSC in all cases. Issue notice to the private respondents to show cause as to why the concerned appeal be not admitted for hearing or disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites, etc under registered covered with A/D as also by ordinary process must be filed within two weeks. Mr. Rupesh Singh, Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Ms. Kumari Sugandha and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsels, appear and submit that they will be filing Vakalatnama and waiving notices on behalf of respective writ petitioners/respondents. Let them do so within the aforesaid period of two weeks. If such Vakalatnamas are filed, notices will go only to the remaining private respondents. Mr. Rupesh Singh, Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Ms. Kumari Sugandha and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsels, appear and submit that they will be filing Vakalatnama and waiving notices on behalf of respective writ petitioners/respondents. Let them do so within the aforesaid period of two weeks. If such Vakalatnamas are filed, notices will go only to the remaining private respondents. I.A. No.3336/2021 (in LPA No. 201 of 2021) I.A. No. 3369/2021(in LPA No. 203 of 2021) I.A. No. 3370/2021(in LPA No. 204 of 2021) The instant Interlocutory Applications have been filed for stay of the order dated 07.06.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No.1533 of 2020. Before passing appropriate order upon the instant interlocutory applications, it requires to refer herein that the instant appeals have been filed against the judgment/order dated 07.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1533 of 2020 whereby and whereunder following directions were passed:- “86. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed in the following manner: (i) The merit list prepared by the JPSC is held to be illegal as marks of Paper-I was added in the merit list and Clause-13 of the advertisement with regard to minimum qualifying marks in each paper has not been followed and consequence thereof, the merit list prepared by the Commission is, hereby, quashed. (ii) Consequently, the appointments made without following the procedure held to be nullity. (iii) The JPSC is directed to prepare a fresh merit list with reference to marks in written test and interview without adding the marks of Paper-I in the merit list considering minimum qualifying marks in each paper and thereafter finalize the selection in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and recommend the same to the State of Jharkhand within four weeks thereafter and in furtherance, the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand is directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the successful candidates based upon the fresh merit list forthwith.” Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respective appellants assisted by Mr. Sumeet Gadodia and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel, submit that Main Examination consists of six papers having total 1050 marks. Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respective appellants assisted by Mr. Sumeet Gadodia and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel, submit that Main Examination consists of six papers having total 1050 marks. Paper-I, which consists of General Hindi and General English, is having full marks of 100 in which minimum 30 marks is mandatory, therefore, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JPSC’) considered the merit of one or the other candidates of the total marks secured by one or the other candidates taking together 1050 marks but the learned Single Judge has interpreted the marks stipulated for Paper-I in the nature of qualifying in which minimum 30 marks is mandatory, not to be added in the assessment of merit of one or the other candidates, meaning thereby, the merit position of one or the other candidates will be prepared on the basis of 950 marks which cannot be said to be proper interpretation of the conditions of the advertisement. The successful candidates have participated and taking together the marks obtained by one or the other successful candidates against the total marks of 1050, they have been selected and appointed and now they are rendering their services but due to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, their appointments have been held to be nullity and the learned Single Judge has directed to prepare the revised merit list. It has been submitted that the Clause which has been stipulated in the advertisement is having no ambiguity, the same is to be read out without any further interpretation, herein since the Main Examination consist of VI Papers, having total 1050 marks, therefore, the merit position of one or the other candidates has been stipulated to be prepared on the basis of the total marks secured irrespective of the fact that the requirement of marks in Paper-I is to obtain minimum 30 marks, qualifying in nature. It has been submitted that their appointments have been made in terms of the advertisement wherein the merit position has been determined on the basis of the total marks secured by one or the other candidates. It has been submitted that their appointments have been made in terms of the advertisement wherein the merit position has been determined on the basis of the total marks secured by one or the other candidates. It has further been submitted that if an ad-interim order would not be passed, it will cause irreparable loss as there is every likelihood that the appellants will be removed from service or their position would be degraded on effect of revision of merit list as directed by the learned Single Judge which will be prejudicial to their interest. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also submits that the advertisement does not stipulate the preparation of merit list on the basis of the marks obtained against the total marks of VI Papers comprising of 1050 marks in view of the fact that Paper-I is qualifying in nature, therefore, marks obtained therein will not be added in preparation of merit list of one or the other candidates. It has been submitted that Paper-I only consist of having the syllabus of 10th standard and as such, if the interpretation of the learned counsel for the appellant would be accepted it will mean that the entire merit position would depend ultimately upon the marks obtained by one or the other candidates of the 10th standard paper, which cannot be equated with the marks obtained in the compulsory subject which is having the syllabus of graduate level. Since this Court has found from the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties for consideration of the issue involved in the lis, therefore, notices have been issued to the respondents, accordingly, deems it fit and proper to pass ad-interim order to maintain status quo as exists today. Accordingly, status quo, as exists today, shall be maintained by the parties till further orders. Learned counsels for the appellants in respective appeals undertake that they will not plead equity in case any adverse decision is passed by this Court on the ground that the appeal has remained pending and during that period they have remained in employment. Put up these matters on 28.09.2021 within top five cases. All these appeals will be heard together.” 5. Put up these matters on 28.09.2021 within top five cases. All these appeals will be heard together.” 5. In terms of order dated 10.08.2021, the writ petitioners as also the other unsuccessful/successful candidates appeared, by filing Vakalatnama, through their respective counsel. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have also filed written note of argument as also list of judgments, apart from their lengthy oral argument. 7. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appears for the appellants in L.P.A. No. 201 of 2021; Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appears for the appellants in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2021; Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appear for the appellants in L.P.A. No. 204 of 2021 and Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel appears for the appellants in L.P.A. No. 207 of 2021. However, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel has led the argument on behalf of appellants which has almost been adopted by other learned counsel for the appellants, except some additions, therefore, we are dealing with the argument of Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel as also the addition made by other counsels. 8. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has argued by raising two issues: (i). Whether the marks obtained in Paper-I were to be added in total marks? (ii). Whether Clause 13 of the advertisement refers to minimum qualifying marks in each paper or in aggregate of all papers? 9. Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding recorded by learned Single Judge, holding that the merit list prepared by the JPSC to be illegal as marks of Paper-I was added in the merit list and Clause 13 of the advertisement with regard to minimum qualifying marks in each paper has not been followed and in consequence thereof the merit list prepared by the Commission was quashed, is contrary to the law and is liable to be set aside as the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the case on fact as well as on merit since the appellants’ selection have been made on the basis of and in conformity with the Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1951 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1951’], the advertisement for the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination and the report of V.S. Dubey Expert Committee. He submits that the advertisement explicitly mentions that the Main Examination will be of six papers having total marks of 1050. It has been stated in Clause 12 (B) of the advertisement that in the Main Examination there is “no optional subject”. All are common compulsory subjects while Paper-I (General English and General Hindi) is said to have been qualifying paper with minimum 30 marks, the marks of which was to be added/included in the total marks since the total marks (only after including that of paper I) comes to 1050, otherwise it would have been mentioned 950 marks as total. Further, there is no indication in the advertisement to the effect that the marks obtained higher than 30 marks in Paper-I will not be added for determining inter se merit. Moreover, the advertisement which was issued for 5th Combined Civil Services Examination specifically mentions that marks in the qualifying paper would not be added to the total marks for determination of inter se merit of the candidates, contrarily in the present advertisement, it has expressly been mentioned that the Main Examination would be to total 1050 marks. Furthermore, the template of the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination is based on the V.S. Dubey Committee report. The recommendation on the issue of Paper-I is as under: “46. The Alagh committee has strongly recommended retention of the English language as one of the compulsory papers in the Civil Services (Main) Examination of the Union Government......The Committee, therefore, recommends that the existing compulsory General Hindi paper of the Main Examination of the Jharkhand Civil Services be replaced by a composite paper of matric standard of General Hindi and General English, carrying a maximum of 100 marks. This paper will have two distinct segments, one of General Hindi and the other one of General English: each of 50 marks. It is further suggested that the marks obtained in this paper should be counted, like that of any other paper of the Main Examination, for preparation of the final gradation list.” It has further been contended that the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, vide its letter No. 3256 dated 21.04.2016 has informed the JPSC that certain amendments have been made in the syllabus and the same is to be made applicable with immediate effect including for the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination. Thus, it is evident from the letter that the total marks in the Main examination has been enhanced from 1000 to 1050 which includes 100 marks of Paper-I. Therefore, the marks of Paper-I were added while preparing the final merit list and therefore, there is no illegality in adding the marks of Paper–I in the light of V.S. Debey Committee report as well as in terms of Clause 12(B) of the advertisement. So far as issue no. (ii) - Whether Clause 13 of the advertisement refers to minimum qualifying marks in each paper or in aggregate of all papers - is concerned, it has been argued by Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants that the minimum qualifying marks has rightly been determined by the JPSC on the basis of aggregate marks of all paper and not on the basis of minimum qualifying marks for each paper in the Main examination and on the basis of which the appellants have been selected and appointed to various posts in the State as would be evident from the provisions of Rules, 1951, the advertisement and the recommendations of the V.S. Dubey Committee report. Learned senior counsel further put much emphasis on Rule 16(b) of the Rules, 1951 and its proviso and submitted that the proviso specifically speaks that in determining the suitability of a particular candidate for appointment, the total marks obtained at the written examination and not the marks obtained in any particular subject shall be taken into consideration. It has further been submitted that the consent of the State Government on the recommendation of the expert committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Sri V.S. Dubey, former Chief Secretary, Jharkhand has been notified through the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand in its notification no. It has further been submitted that the consent of the State Government on the recommendation of the expert committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Sri V.S. Dubey, former Chief Secretary, Jharkhand has been notified through the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand in its notification no. 9477 dated 25.03.2013 wherein it has been resolved to the effect that: “Hence, in the opinion of the expert committee, it should not be necessary to prescribe a minimum cut off for individual paper; though it will be necessary for commission to determine an overall minimum cut off to call the candidates for the personality Test (interview).” It has further been argued by making reference of resolution dated 27.11.2012 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand wherein minimum qualifying marks for various categories of the candidates [Unreserved- 40% Backward Class-I- 34% Backward Class-II -36.5% Scheduled Caste/Tribe and Woman- 32%] was notified and was made compulsory to be followed by JPSC and other recruitment agency authorized by the State Government. It has further been contended that above mentioned criteria has been mentioned as Clause No. 12 of the advertisement of the JPSC as well and during process of selection of 5th JPSC examination. Further, the Commission had issued a fresh note saying that the above requirement would be treated as aggregate and not paper-wise. The commission had called for such candidates for interview who were not secured minimum cut-off in one of more main examination and, therefore, the criteria of securing minimum qualifying marks in 6th JPSC is same as 5th JPSC and is based on the resolution dated 27.11.2012 and as such same provision must be followed in the 6th JPSC as followed in 5th JPSC and minimum qualifying marks should be taken in aggregate and not separately for each paper. He has also given instance of the subsequent Rule issued vide notification no. 162 dated 08.01.2021 which clearly provides the provision as under Rule 17(i), providing therein as under: “17(i).Candidates who obtain minimum qualifying marks of 40% in aggregate shall only be considered by the Commission while preparing the select list for Main Examination and for preparing the merit list for the purpose of Main (Interview) test. However, the minimum qualifying marks shall be relaxable as per following criteria: Sl. No. Category Minimum qualifying marks 1. Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Females 32% 2. However, the minimum qualifying marks shall be relaxable as per following criteria: Sl. No. Category Minimum qualifying marks 1. Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Females 32% 2. Extremely Backward Class (Annexure-1) 34% 3. Backward Class (Annexure-II) 36.5% 4. Primitive Tribal Group 30% 5. Economically Weaker Section 40% Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel based upon such ground has submitted that order passed by learned Single Judge suffers from gross irregularity since the entire merit list was quashed on the basis of wrong interpretation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement vis-a-vis applicable Rule and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel, in furtherance to the argument advanced by Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel has submitted by referring to the settled position of law that if there is any discrepancy in the terms of the advertisement and the applicable recruitment rule, it is the Rule which will prevail upon the both; and as such according to him the provision as contained under Rule 16 (b), which contains a proviso to the effect that in determining the suitability of a particular candidate for appointment total marks in the written examination and not the marks obtained in any particular subject shall be taken into consideration. Therefore, according to him, even the rule provides that, in determining the suitability of a particular candidate for appointment, the total marks obtained at the written examination and not the marks obtained in any particular subject shall be determined and based upon the same selection has been made of the appellants by taking the total marks obtained by one or the other successful candidates in aggregate of 1050 marks. Therefore, according to him, the selection process is based upon the provisions of Rule 15 but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by learned Single Judge and, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that selection process is to be depend upon the provision of Rule, herein the Rules, 1951. 10. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for one of the appellants in one of the appeals, in addition to the argument advanced by Mr. 10. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for one of the appellants in one of the appeals, in addition to the argument advanced by Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel, submitted that the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Single Bench of this Court in Joy Guria (Supra)cannot be a guiding factor which led the learned Single Judge to quash the merit list since according to him the judgment in the said case was only with respect to the preliminary examination and as such has nothing to do with the Main Examination as has wrongly been considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. He has further submitted by referring to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors wherein also the concept of getting qualifying marks in each subject has been discarded but even then also same has not been considered by learned Single Judge in its right prospective. He further referring to the judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) submits that if there is any ambiguity in advertisement it will go in favour of the candidates and since according to him there is ambiguity in advertisement so the benefit is to be given to the candidates who have been declared to be successful. 11. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 288 in L.P.A. No. 201 of 2021 and respondent no. 320 in L.P.A. No. 204 of 2021; Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned counsel representing the proforma respondents in L.P.A. No. 201 of 2021 and Mr. Subhasish R. Soren, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 in L.P.A. No. 207 of 2021 advanced their argument. However, Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned counsel has led the argument defending the order passed by learned Single Judge and other learned counsels adopted his argument, both on fact and law, with some additions. Therefore, this Court is dealing with argument advanced by Mr. Shah first. 12. Mr. Shah, learned counsel, refuting the argument advanced on behalf of Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants on issue nos. Therefore, this Court is dealing with argument advanced by Mr. Shah first. 12. Mr. Shah, learned counsel, refuting the argument advanced on behalf of Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants on issue nos. 1 and 2, and referring to clause 12 of the advertisement which stipulates about scheme of examination i.e. preliminary examination, Main examination and interview, submitted that the State of Jharkhand after its creation under Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 adopted the Rules of 1951, subject to modifications made therein by the State of Jharkhand. He has relied upon regulation dated 27.11.2012 which provides minimum qualifying marks category-wise in various selection conducted in the State of Jharkhand. He further submits by referring to V.S. Dubey Committee report that by the aforesaid notification which has been notified by invoking the power conferred under Rule 15 of the Rules, 1951 and as per the recommendation of the JPSC who has accepted the recommendations of V.S. Dubey Committee report which only prescribes the revised scheme of examination and syllabus as per Annexure 1 (Ka, Kha and Ga) to be made applicable from 6th Combined Civil Services Examination. According to him, Annexure 1 (ka) stipulates about syllabus for the revised preliminary examination. Annexure 1 (Kha) stipulates about the syllabus of the Main examination of the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination, which shall consist of six compulsory subjects, common to all candidates. Two of these papers, each of 100 marks shall be language based and the remaining four papers, each of 200 marks shall be subject based. Paper I will include General Hindi and English each of 50 marks, total 100 marks and the purpose of Paper-I is only to test the knowledge of the candidates in the above two languages as such question to be asked of Matric Standard only. It has been stipulated under the remark column that it will only be a qualifying paper in which out of 100 marks (combined both Hindi and English) candidate will have to secure only 30 marks. Paper II consists of language and literature having 100 marks option to choose anyone out of given 15 languages. This paper carries 100 marks and marks obtained in this paper will be counted for preparation of the gradation list of the main examination. Paper II consists of language and literature having 100 marks option to choose anyone out of given 15 languages. This paper carries 100 marks and marks obtained in this paper will be counted for preparation of the gradation list of the main examination. Paper-III: Social Sciences (History & Geography); Paper-IV: Indian Constitution& Polity, Public Administration & Good Governance; Paper-V: Indian Economy, Globalization and Sustainable Development; and Paper-VI: General Science, Environment & Technology Development, each paper [Paper III to VI) consist of 200 marks each. Total Marks - 900 marks [Main Examination] [100 marks of paper-I will be of qualifying nature only] + Personality Test/Interview - 100 marks. Grand Total for 900+100 = 1000 marks for preparing merit List. Subsequently, report of Saryu Rai Committee was accepted by the State vide resolution 17.08.2016 for recommendation to enhance the weightage of Paper-II –language and literature from 100 marks to 150 marks. Thus, Main examination was total weightage of 1050 marks. He has contended that the selection process in the matter of public employment is governed by the relevant service Rules and terms & conditions as stipulated in the advertisement. The provision of Rule, 1951 contains a provision as under Rule 15 which prescribes that the examination shall be held according to syllabus specified at Appendix-D to the Rules, 1951 which are liable to alteration from time to time. Thus, invoking the power prescribed under Rule 15 of the Rules, 1951, the State Government by its notification dated 25.09.2013 accepted the recommendation of JPSC based upon the report of V.S. Dubey committee report, prescribing the revised syllabus and scheme of the examination applicable from 6th Combined Civil Services Examination. It would be evident from perusal of the revised scheme for Main examination which makes it clear that paper I which is general Hindi and General English having weightage of 50 marks each in total 100 marks was prescribed as “only a qualifying paper” where the every candidate has to “secure only 30 marks”. The purpose of prescribing Paper-I as qualifying paper is evident from the fact that the standard of question paper of paper-I was prescribed to be of matric standard only to assess the working knowledge of the candidate in Hindi and English. The purpose of prescribing Paper-I as qualifying paper is evident from the fact that the standard of question paper of paper-I was prescribed to be of matric standard only to assess the working knowledge of the candidate in Hindi and English. Further, the condition to the effect that every candidate will have to secure 30 marks is to secure the interest of the candidates belonging to Hindi Regional Language background as 50 marks are assigned for general English out of the total 100 marks and therefore also it had no weightage in the gradation list. Therefore, rule making authority intended to make merit only as per marks secured in Paper-II to paper VI. He has further contended that the position has already been clarified after the order has been passed by the Co-ordinate learned Single Bench of this Court in Joy Guria (supra), wherein it is the JPSC and the State Government who have submitted before the writ Court by filing affidavit that qualifying in each paper is mandatory. He has relied upon the judgment in order to demonstrate the meaning of the word “Only” by making reference to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Raut Vs. Ravindar Nath Raut [ (2012) 1 SCC 762 ], and placing reliance upon said judgment it has been submitted that syllabus of Paper-I of Rule 15 of the Rules, 1951 specifies it to be “Only qualifying in nature” with information to the candidates of all vertical categories that they have to “secure only 30 marks”, the use of expression “Only” cannot be lost sight of while changing its character which was that marks of such paper shall not be added in the final merit list as the expression only suggests exclusion of others. Referring to the judgment rendered in Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors [(2206) 9 SCC 507] it has been submitted that the recommendations and suggestions not supported by the Rules cannot be implemented, as such Commission ought not to have added 100 marks of Paper – I when the syllabus under Rule 15 specifically provides that Paper-I shall be only qualifying in nature and candidates are required to secure only 30 marks. The Commission could also not have applied aggregate marks as Rule 16(a) prescribes qualifying marks in of each of the subjects. The Commission could also not have applied aggregate marks as Rule 16(a) prescribes qualifying marks in of each of the subjects. He has relied upon the judgment rendered in Indian Institute of Technology & Anr. Vs. Paras Nath Tiwari & Ors [ (2006) 9 SCC 670 ] and submitted that the condition in the Rules must be read into the advertisement. He has further submitted that the proviso to Rule 16(b) of the Rules of 1951 cannot be read in exclusion with Rule 16(a). To buttress his argument, he has relied upon the judgment rendered in Rohitash Yadav & Ors Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. [ (2013) 11 SCC 451 ]. 13. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned counsel appearing for one of the respondents/pro forma respondents has submitted that the action of the JPSC as also of the State of Jharkhand in conducting 6th Combined Civil Services Examination is in violation of order passed by the Co-ordinate learned Single Bench of this Court in Joy Guria (supra) since the judgment of the said case was passed with the assistance of the State and JPSC. 14. Mr. Choubey, learned counsel for the pro forma respondents raising an issue submitted that when the writ Court in Joy Guria (supra) has passed order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that too on the strength of stand of JPSC and the State Government to the effect that passing in each subject is mandatory in preliminary, which has been adopted by the policy decision and once order has been passed by learned Single Judge it cannot be expected and it is not the principle that the State authority will discard the order passed by the Constitutional Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and once the order has been passed by the Constitutional Court like High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and attained its finality it has got binding effect at least upon the State functionary and the public servants, being the mandate of law. However, the matter would have been different if the Bench having larger forum may differ on fact since this Court is not sitting in appeal of that order, as such legality and propriety of that order cannot be looked into rather to see that when the order has been passed on the basis of specific averments made by the State Government and JPSC there cannot be any deviation from the said stand by taking different view after the order having been passed by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise also, the State authority or the JPSC cannot be allowed to take contrary view depending upon the situation and if that would be allowed to be continued it will be nothing but shaking of the public confidence upon the constitutional body like Public Service Commission and action of the State authority would also be put to question. Therefore, once order has been passed by the Co-ordinate learned Single Bench of this Court discarding the plea of the writ petitioner of that case that passing in each subject is mandatory, the same cannot be allowed to be deviated and since the parameter of the preliminary test which is objective in nature and the written examination which is descriptive in nature are having the same parameter for the minimum qualifying marks, therefore, the JPSC ought to have conducted the selection process strictly based upon their own policy decision but having not done so gross illegality has been committed. 15. Mr. Subhasish R. Soren, learned counsel for respondent no. 1-writ petitioner in L.P.A. No. 207 of 2021, has adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Vigyan Shah. 16. Mr. 15. Mr. Subhasish R. Soren, learned counsel for respondent no. 1-writ petitioner in L.P.A. No. 207 of 2021, has adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Vigyan Shah. 16. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that although before the writ Court the process adopted by the JPSC has been defended but in the appeal the order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge has not been opposed since order impugned has been passed by taking into consideration the stand of the State which they have taken by virtue of policy decision to prepare merit list on the basis of qualifying marks obtained in each subject basis upon which the Co-ordinate learned Single Bench has passed order in Joy Guria (supra) and the learned Single Judge has passed the order relying upon the order passed by learned Co-ordinate Single Judge in Joy Guria (supra) and as such we are defending the said order. 17. Likewise, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondents-JPSC has submitted that he has nothing to say. 18. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perusing the documents available on record as also the written notes of argument filed on their behalf and the findings recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, is of the view that the following issues require adjudication: (i).Whether the JPSC has committed error in adding the marks obtained in Paper-I [Hindi and English] of Main Examination in the merit list, which has been stipulated to be only qualifying in nature? (ii).Whether the merit list prepared by the JPSC based upon the ‘aggregate qualifying marks’ of all subjects or ‘minimum qualifying marks’ in each of the subjects, is considered to be correct? (iii).Whether the stand which has been taken by the JPSC as also the State before the Court of law based upon which the order has been passed in Joy Guria (supra) or the contrary view taken while preparing the merit list of the successful candidate in 6th Combined Civil Service Competitive Examination conducted by JPSC is considered to be correct? 19. 19. This Court, before answering the aforesaid issues, deem it fit and proper to refer certain admitted facts, which are important for proper adjudication of the lis: The JPSC has come out with an advertisement being Advertisement No. 23 of 2016 under the caption ‘Jharkhand Public Service Commission Combined Civil Service Competitive Examination-2016’ for inviting applications from the eligible candidates for consideration of their candidature for appointment against 326 advertised posts for different categories of candidates under different departments of State of Jharkhand. The candidates claiming themselves to be eligible made applications after going through the terms and conditions of the advertisement for consideration of their candidature for appointment against advertised posts. The examination was decided to be conducted in three stages, (A). Preliminary Examination; (B). Main Examination and (C). Interview, as per clause 12 of the advertisement. The preliminary examination was conducted on 18.12.2016, result of which was published on 23.02.2017 in which 5138 candidates were shortlisted for Main examination. The said result was challenged in W.P.(S) No. 1864 of 2017 (Deb Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Others), in which, the State came out with Resolution No. 5562 dated 19th April, 2007, by which decision was taken to declare that “all such candidates belonging to the reserved category, whose marks are equal or more than that of the last placed candidates in the list of the 15 times of the shortlisted unreserved category candidates (barring specially abled category) shall be considered successful for the Main Examination.” It was further submitted by the State before the writ Court in Deb Kumar (Supra)that in view of such policy decision of the State, JPSC is required to publish amended result. Considering the aforesaid submission, the Co-ordinate learned Single Bench disposed of the writ petition with direction to the JPSC to take steps for publication of amended results in terms of the said resolution/notification. After passing of the said order by the Court, the JPSC published the amended result of Preliminary examination on 11.08.2017 by which 6103 candidates were declared successful. The State Government again issued circular dated 12.02.2018 by which it was decided that those candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks [40% for General Category; 36.5% for Backward Class; 34 % for Backward Class and 32 % for Scheduled Caste/Tribe and Female Category] as mentioned in the circular dated 27.11.2012 will be deemed to be selected for the Main Examination. The said circular was challenged before the writ Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Others), which was dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2018. Thereafter, the JPSC again published the second revised result on 06.08.2018. However, the order passed in the said W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 was challenged before Division Bench of this Court by filing L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Others) and during the pendency of the said appeal, the JPSC announced the date for Main examination from 28.01.2019 to 01.02.2019, which was brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Division Bench but no stay was granted, as such Main examination was conducted. The said L.P.A. was allowed vide order dated 21.10.2019 and the resolution dated 12.02.2018 and also the consequent revised results, published by the JPSC on 06.08.2018, declaring 34,634 candidates successful were quashed. It was further directed that since the written examinations have already been held by the respondent-JPSC, the respondent-JPSC is directed to publish the results of the Main Examination, confined to the candidates, declared successful in its first revised results published on 11.08.2017. The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 726 of 2020 [Deepak Kumar & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] but the same was dismissed in terms of order dated 10.01.2020. Some of the unsuccessful candidates having been not satisfied with the result dated 06.08.2018 approached to this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 5046 of 2018 [Gaurav Priyadarshi vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] and W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2018 [Joy Guria & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.] with a prayer to declare the them successful in 2nd revised Preliminary examination result dated 06.08.2018 in view of the fact that they have secured more aggregate marks in both the papers taken together even then that they have not been declared successful in the 2nd revised Preliminary Test. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.] with a prayer to declare the them successful in 2nd revised Preliminary examination result dated 06.08.2018 in view of the fact that they have secured more aggregate marks in both the papers taken together even then that they have not been declared successful in the 2nd revised Preliminary Test. In the aforesaid writ petitions the JPSC has appeared and filed counter affidavit stating therein that only those candidates category-wise have been declared successful for their appearance in the Main examination who have secured minimum qualifying marks in each papers i.e. Paper-I and Paper-II and therein the JPSC has also enclosed order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9217 of 2018 [Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand]. The said writ petitions were heard together and dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2018, wherein the Court hold that this Court restrains itself from interfering in the matter of policy decision of the State Govt. and thus, finds no illegality in not declaring the candidates (present petitioners) qualified, who failed to obtain minimum qualifying marks as per the specifications indicated in Para-3 aforesaid (resolution dated 27.11.2012). Pursuant to these litigations, result of Main Examination was pronounced on 15.02.2020. After publication of the result of Main Examination, interview was conducted w.e.f. 24.02.2020 and the final result for recommendation for appointment of the successful candidate was published by the JPSC on 21.04.2020. The recommendation made by the JPSC has finally been accepted and candidates have been selected and appointed. After publication of the result of Main Examination, interview was conducted w.e.f. 24.02.2020 and the final result for recommendation for appointment of the successful candidate was published by the JPSC on 21.04.2020. The recommendation made by the JPSC has finally been accepted and candidates have been selected and appointed. But the entire selection process has been questioned by the candidates who have not been declared to be successful, by filing number of writ petitions, outcome of which is the subject matter of instant intra-court appeals, with a prayer to quash the result/merit list of 6th Combined Civil Services Examination-2016 published on 21.04.2020; declare the action of the respondent-JPSC in taking into account/adding the total marks obtained by the candidates in Paper-I of General Hindi & General English [Main Examination] while preparing merit list, to be illegal as it is only qualifying in nature; and further declaring the action of the respondent-JPSC in not adhering to the condition of testing the candidates having obtained minimum qualifying marks, as prescribed in Clause 13 of the advertisement, so far as each individual paper in which the candidates have appeared, to be illegal; and for direction upon the respondents to publish the revised merit list. 20. In furtherance to the aforesaid factual background, this Court in order to answer the issues, as formulated by this Court, also requires to travel across the relevant Rules as also the terms & conditions of the advertisement, based upon which the selection process has been initiated. 21. The relevant Rule 15 and 16 of the Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1951, which is relevant in the instant case read under as: “15. The examination shall be held according to the syllabus specified in Appendix D to these rules which are liable to alteration from time to time by the Commission with the prior approval of the State Government. ...... 16. (a)The Commission shall have discretion to fix the qualifying marks in any or all the subjects at the written examination. The examination shall be held according to the syllabus specified in Appendix D to these rules which are liable to alteration from time to time by the Commission with the prior approval of the State Government. ...... 16. (a)The Commission shall have discretion to fix the qualifying marks in any or all the subjects at the written examination. (b)The minimum qualifying marks for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall not be higher than 35% for the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch), and 30% for the Bihar Junior Civil Service unless the number of such candidates qualifying at the written test according to the standards applied for other candidates is considerably in excess of the number of candidates required to fill all the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: Provided that in determining the suitability of a particular candidate for appointment, the total marks obtained at the written examination and not the marks obtained in any particular subject shall be taken into consideration. (c) There shall be no qualifying marks for the viva voce test.” Emphasis supplied It is evident from the provision of Rule 16(a) which says that the Commission has discretion to fix the qualifying marks in any or all the written examination. Sub-section (b) provides that the minimum qualifying marks for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall not be higher than 35% for the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch), and 30% for the Bihar Junior Civil Service unless the number of such candidates qualifying at the written test according to the standards applied for other candidates is considerably in excess of the number of candidates required to fill all the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes The provision as contained in sub-rule (a) starts from the word the Commission shall have discretion to ...........written examination. While sub-Rule (b) starts from the word the minimum qualifying marks for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes ....:. .Proviso to Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 16 says that in determining the suitability of a particular candidate for appointment, the total marks obtained at the written examination and not the marks obtained in any particular subject shall be taken into consideration. .Proviso to Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 16 says that in determining the suitability of a particular candidate for appointment, the total marks obtained at the written examination and not the marks obtained in any particular subject shall be taken into consideration. The wording of provision of Rule 16 (a) itself is a complete provision since it ends by conferring power upon the Commission to fix the qualifying marks in any or all the subjects in the written examination. While sub-rule (b) of Rule 16 which speaks about Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, whose marks shall not be higher than 35 percent for the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch), and 30% for the Bihar Junior Civil Service at the written test according to the standards applied for other candidates is considerably in excess of the number of candidates required to full all the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In such circumstances, proviso has been given in determining the suitability of a particular candidate for appointment, i.e. the candidates belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in a case if found considerably in excess of the number of candidates then in such circumstances the total marks obtained at the written examination and not the marks obtained in any particular subject shall be taken into consideration. Therefore, the proviso to Rule 16 (b) is not for Rule 16 in entirety rather according to our considered view it is only proviso to sub-rule (b) of Rule 16 that too for the consideration of the candidature of scheduled tribes and scheduled castes in a case if the members of such category candidates qualifying in the written test according to the standard applied for the other candidate is considerably in excess of the number of candidates required to fill all the vacancies reserved for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Therefore, according to our considered view, in present context the preparation of merit list on the basis of total marks obtained at the written test as per the proviso to Rule 16 (b) cannot be said to be a correct argument and it cannot be applied in entirety for the entire selection process rather it is up to the Commission to consider the said proviso if such exigency exists as per the stipulation made under Rule 16 (b) of the Rules, 1951. 22. 22. It would further be relevant to reproduce relevant portions of Clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement being Advertisement No. 23/2016 as under: ^^12- ijh{kk dk Lo:i%& p;u gsrq izkjafHkd ijh{kk ,oa eq[; ijh{kk ¼fyf[kr ,oa lk{kkRdkj½ vk;ksftr dh tk;sxhA ¼,½ izkjafHkd ijh{kk%& izkjafHkd ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij dksfVokj fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k ds 15 xq.kk mEehnokjksa dks eq[; ijh{kk ds fy, pquko ¼'kkVZfyfLVax½ fd;k tk;sxkA izkjafHkd ijh{kk nks i=ksa dh gksxh ftudk iw.kkZad 200&200 ¼dqy pkj lkS½ gksxkA buds izkIrkad eq[; ijh{kk ;k lk{kkRdkj ds vadksa ds lkFk tksM+k ugha tk;sxkA nksuksa i=ksa dh ijh{kk vks0,e0vkj0 vk/kkfjr gksxhA izkjafHkd ijh{kk esa vks,evkj Bhd &#2338ax ls Hkjuk vko';d gksxk vU;Fkk vH;fFkZ;k jÌ dj nh tk;sxhA izkjafHkd ijh{kk ds lHkh fo"k;ksa@i=ksa esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lfEefyr gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA izkjafHkd ijh{kk dk ikB~;Øe fuEuor~ gS% & SYLLABUS FOR THE PRELIMINARY TEST OF COMBINED CIVIL SERVICES EXAMINATION-2016 The Preliminary Examination shall consist of two compulsory papers, each of 200 marks namely, (i) General Studies Paper-I (ii) General Studies Paper-II Both the question papers shall be of multiple choice, objective type. The question papers will be set both in Hindi and English. However, questions set to test the comprehension skill and knowledge of language and grammar shall be only in the concerned language, without providing Hindi or English translation thereof. xxxx xxxx xxxx (B) ^^eq[; ijh{kk%& eq[; ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij fjfDr;ksa ds vuq:i rhu xq.kk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq vkeaf=r fd;k tk;sxkA eq[; ijh{kk 06 ¼N%½ i=ksa dh gksxh ftldk dqy iw.kkZad 1050 gksxkA eq[; ijh{kk ds lHkh fo"k;ksa@i=ksa esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lfEefyr gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA eq[; ijh{kk dk ikB~;Øe fuEuor~ gS% & MAIN EXAMINATION (No optional subjects. All are common compulsory Papers) Subject Duration Full Marks Remarks Paper-I: General Hindi & General English, each of 50 marks 3 hours 100 DESCRIPTIVE TYPE. This paper is qualifying in which minimum 30 marks in mandatory. Paper-II: Language and Literature: Under this Paper, every candidate will have to opt for one Language and Literature out of fifteen listed by the commission. 3 hours 150 DESCRIPTIVE TYPE. Paper-III: Social Science, having two distinct sections on (i) History (ii). Geography, each of equal weightage. 3 hours 200 DESCRIPTIVE TYPE. Paper-IV: Indian Constitution & Policy, Public Administration & Good Governance. 3 hours 200 DESCRIPTIVE TYPE. Paper-V: Indian Economy, Globalization and Sustainable Development. 3 hours 200 DESCRIPTIVE TYPE. Paper-VI: General Sciences, Environment & Technology Development. 3 hours 150 DESCRIPTIVE TYPE. Paper-III: Social Science, having two distinct sections on (i) History (ii). Geography, each of equal weightage. 3 hours 200 DESCRIPTIVE TYPE. Paper-IV: Indian Constitution & Policy, Public Administration & Good Governance. 3 hours 200 DESCRIPTIVE TYPE. Paper-V: Indian Economy, Globalization and Sustainable Development. 3 hours 200 DESCRIPTIVE TYPE. Paper-VI: General Sciences, Environment & Technology Development. 3 hours 200 DESCRIPTIVE TYPE. These papers are common to all candidates. (c).xxxx xxxx xxxx 13- izkjafHkd ,oa eq[; ijh{kk dk U;wure vgZrkad% & vukjf{kr 40 izfr'kr fiNM+k oxZ&1 34 izfr'kr fiNM+k oxZ&2 36-5 izfr'kr vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ,oa efgyk oxZ 32 izfr'kr U;wure vgZrkad dk mi;qZDr :i ls fu/kkZj.k lHkh lsokvksa@laoxksZ dh izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kkvksa ds fy, fofHkUu vkj{k.k dksfV;ksa ds fy, lHkh fyf[kr ijh{kkvksa ¼oLrqfu"B@fo"k;fu"B½ ij leku :i ls ykxw jgsxkA eq[; ijh{kk ds izFke i= ¼lkekU; fgUnh ,oa lkekU; vaxzsth½ esa lHkh dksfV ds mEehnokjksa dks 30 vad izkIr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA uksV% & dkfeZd] iz'kklfud lq/kkj rFkk jktHkk"kk foHkkx ds ladYi la[;k&8315 fnukad&16-09-2015 ds vkyksd esa flfoy lsok izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk esa lk{kkRdkj gsrq U;wure vgZrkad dh vfuok;Zrk dks lekIr dj fn;k x;k gSA From perusal of the conditions of the advertisements, as quoted herein above, it is evident that Clause No. 12 of the advertisement speaks about the pattern of the examination i.e. Preliminary Test, Main Examination and Interview. Clause 12(A) speaks about Preliminary Examination. The preliminary examination consists of two compulsory papers, each of 200 marks namely, General Studies Paper-I and General Studies Paper-II. Both the question papers are of multiple choice, objective type Clause 12(B) thereof deals with pattern of Main Examination, which has much relevance in the present appeals. Under the caption B, ‘Mukhya Priksha’ (Main Examination), it has been said that Main Examination consists of six common compulsory papers, total marks of which will be 1050. It is essential for the candidates to appear in all subjects/papers in Main examination. Paper I, General Hindi and General English, each of 50 marks is qualifying in nature in which minimum 30 marks is mandatory. Paper –II, Language and literature, under this paper every candidate will have to opt for one language and literature out of fifteen listed language by the Commission, which is of descriptive type of 150 marks. Paper III, IV, V and VI is of descriptive type each having 200 marks. Thus, in total the Main examination is of 1050 marks. Paper –II, Language and literature, under this paper every candidate will have to opt for one language and literature out of fifteen listed language by the Commission, which is of descriptive type of 150 marks. Paper III, IV, V and VI is of descriptive type each having 200 marks. Thus, in total the Main examination is of 1050 marks. On perusal of Clause-13 of the advertisement, it transpires that the minimum qualifying marks for both Preliminary and Main Examination for the category of unreserved is 40%, Backward Class-I -- 34%, Backward Class-II - 36.5% and for Scheduled Caste/Tribe and Woman - 32%. It further appears that the minimum marks for all the written examination (Objective/Descriptive) will be at par for all service/cadre. It also speaks that it will be mandatory for all the candidates to secure 30 marks in Paper I, General Hindi and General English, so far Mains examination is concerned. Thus, it is evident that for Paper-I stipulation to the effect has been made that minimum 30 marks mandatorily to have obtained by one or the other candidate for qualifying in the said subject so that they may be considered for selection by taking the marks of the other subjects i.e. Paper II to IV. Herein, the word “Minimum” has been mentioned in the advertisement i.e. minimum 30 marks is to be obtained which is qualifying in nature. But the Rule is otherwise, so far as obtaining of minimum qualifying marks in Paper I is concerned. The syllabus as would be evident from syllabus of the main examination of the JPSC as appended with the paper book, wherein it has been stipulated to the effect that the General Hindi and General English paper shall be of composite paper consisting of two segments having (i). Hindi and (ii). English. Both the segments shall be of equal weightage. The purpose of the paper is to test the working knowledge of the candidates in above subjects. The question to be asked in both the segments of this paper shall be of matric standard only. Hindi and (ii). English. Both the segments shall be of equal weightage. The purpose of the paper is to test the working knowledge of the candidates in above subjects. The question to be asked in both the segments of this paper shall be of matric standard only. For ready reference, the detailed syllabus of Paper I, (Main Examination) as appended as Annexure 1 (Kha) to the advertisement, which is much relevance in the case in hand, is quoted hereunder as: PAPER-I General Hindi and General English Total Marks: 100 Time: 3 hours The General Hindi and General English paper shall be a composite paper, consisting of two segments, namely, (i). Hindi and (ii).English. Both the segments shall be of equal weightage i.e. each of 50 marks. The purpose of the paper is to test the working knowledge of the candidates in the above two languages. As such questions to be asked in both the segments of this paper shall be of matric standard only and shall be confined to the following areas: (A). General Hindi: 50 marks (B). General English: 50 marks It will be only a qualifying paper in which out of 100 (combined both Hindi & English) every candidate will have to secure only 30 marks. Thus inclusion of 50 marks General English component will not adversely impact the chances of students from Hindi/Regional Language background. Emphasis supplied From bare perusal of the above, it is evident that in the syllabus stipulation has been made that in qualifying paper the candidate has to secure only 30 marks. It is not in dispute that the word which starts from ‘securing minimum 30 marks’ is different to that of ‘securing only 30 marks’ reason being that the meaning of obtaining minimum 30 marks denotes the candidate has to secure at least 30 marks. But when stipulation has been made to secure only 30 marks which has got other implication that the candidate is only required to obtain 30 marks and if a candidate is acquiring 30 marks he will have to be declared successful in that particular subject. But when stipulation has been made to secure only 30 marks which has got other implication that the candidate is only required to obtain 30 marks and if a candidate is acquiring 30 marks he will have to be declared successful in that particular subject. Further the standard of examination has been of martic/10th standard which also goes to suggest that in competitive examination like state service which is being conducted by JPSC of the State for appointment of a candidate to work as Class II State service there cannot be assessment of merit on the basis of syllabus of matric standard and therefore, we are not hesitant in holding that when a subject has been said to be qualifying in nature having 10th standard syllabus it cannot be allowed to be accepted for the preparation of the merit for declaration of the candidature of the meritorious candidate in comparison to the other candidates who are securing more marks in the main subject having the syllabus of graduate level. 23. Accordingly, issue no. 1, whether the marks obtained in Paper-I were to be added in total marks, is answered that the marks obtained in Paper-I (Mains Examination) were not to be added in total marks while preparing merit list for declaration of the candidature of one or the other candidate. 24. So far issue nos. (ii).Whether the merit list prepared by the JPSC based upon the ‘aggregate qualifying marks’ of all subjects or ‘minimum qualifying marks’ in each of the subjects, is considered to be correct and (iii).Whether the stand which has been taken by the JPSC as also the State before the Court of law based upon which the order has been passed in Joy Guria (supra) or the contrary view taken while preparing the merit list of the successful candidate in 6th Combined Civil Service Competitive Examination conducted by JPSC is considered to be correct; are concerned, since both the issues are inter-lined with each other, as such the same are being taken up together to be answered in the following manner. 25. This Court in order to answer these issues, deems it fit and proper to again consider the stipulation made in Clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the advertisement which speaks minimum qualifying marks in preliminary and Main examination of each category of candidates. 25. This Court in order to answer these issues, deems it fit and proper to again consider the stipulation made in Clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the advertisement which speaks minimum qualifying marks in preliminary and Main examination of each category of candidates. Meaning thereby the parameter fixed either for the preliminary test or the written/Main examination will be same as the word/phrase inserted in the advertisement ‘the minimum marks for all the written examination (subjective and descriptive) will be at equal footing”. Thus, there is no dispute about the fact that, if this Clause will be taken into consideration, the parameter fixed in the objective test and/or the descriptive type test would be same so far as minimum qualifying marks is concerned. It requires to refer herein that from the language used in the condition as Clause no. 13 it transpires that the minimum qualifying marks will be in each subject or not on the total aggregate marks. In this regard, we have also considered the submission of JPSC as also the State in the affidavit filed before the writ Court in Joy Guria Case wherein in specific terms, it has been stated that the candidate is required to qualify in each, preliminary and Main examination. The relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit read under as: “22. That, it is not out of place to mention here that in the syllabus, as mentioned in Advertisement, there are two Papers for Preliminary Test Examination, i.e. G.S. Paper-I and G.S. Paper-II having prospectus in different subjects. 23. That, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the JPSC, while publishing the 1st result dated 23.02.2017 and revised result dated 11.08.2017, has declared only those candidates successful who have secured the minimum qualifying marks in each papers. For example (Unreserved Category) Unreserved category candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks, i.e. 40 % in each papers were only considered and declared successful in Preliminary Test Examination. Same principle will also followed for other categories. 24. For example (Unreserved Category) Unreserved category candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks, i.e. 40 % in each papers were only considered and declared successful in Preliminary Test Examination. Same principle will also followed for other categories. 24. That, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances while publishing the re-revised result dated 6.8.2018, in compliance of order dated 18.5.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 by this Hon’ble Court, the JPSC has again followed the same criteria in declaring the result of Preliminary Test Examination and only those candidates category wise have been declared successful for their appearance in the mains examination who have secured the minimum qualifying marks in each papers, i.e. Paper-I and Paper-II. 25. That, it would be evident from the materials available on the record that petitioners belong to different categories and have not secured the minimum qualifying marks either in Paper-I or in Paper-II and as such they have not been declared successful in the re-revised result dated 06.08.2018 and as such there is no illegality in publication of re-revised result dated 6.08.2018. 26. That, the grievance of the petitioners in this writ application is that a candidate who have secured 40% marks (Unreserved category) etc. collectively, i.e. in Paper-I and Paper-II as a whole deemed to be successful for mains examination in view of the resolution of the State Govt. and as such not declaring the petitioners as successful in the revised result, is illegal. That aforesaid contention of the petitioners is misleading, misconceived and not correct and as such strongly denied.” (Emphasis supplied) The Co-ordinate Single Bench of this Court in Joy Guria (Supra) case, has considered this aspect of the matter to the effect that the present petitioners i.e. Joy Guria and others belong to different categories and have not secured the minimum qualifying marks in Paper-I and Paper II and as such have not been declared successful in the revised result dated 06.12.2018 and as such there is no illegality in the revised list dated 06.12.2018. The respondent-JPSC before the writ Court in Joy Guria Case had strongly denied the contention of the petitioner (in Joy Guria Case) that the candidates who have secured 40% marks (Unreserved category) etc. collectively, i.e. in Paper-I and Paper-II as a whole deemed to be successful for Main examination in view of the resolution of the State Govt. The respondent-JPSC before the writ Court in Joy Guria Case had strongly denied the contention of the petitioner (in Joy Guria Case) that the candidates who have secured 40% marks (Unreserved category) etc. collectively, i.e. in Paper-I and Paper-II as a whole deemed to be successful for Main examination in view of the resolution of the State Govt. and as such not declaring the petitioners as successful in the re-revised result, is illegal. To buttress his argument reliance has been put on the judgment rendered in the case of Taniya Malik Vs. the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi [W.P.S. (C) No.764 of 2017]. Thereafter, the co-ordinate learned Single Bench has passed the order to the effect that no case is made out for interference in the instant writ petition by taking into consideration resolution dated 27.11.2012. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in Joy Guria (Supra)i.e. paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 are reproduced hereunder as: “8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in the instant writ petition. In view of the directions of this Court, JPSC published the results of the PT on 23.02.2017 and thereafter, State Govt. issued Circular dated 19.04.2017, by which the decision was taken to declare all such candidates belonging to the reserved category, whose marks are equal or more than that of the last placed candidate in the list of 15 times of the shortlisted unreserved category candidates. The said Circular No. 5562 dated 19.04.2017 was considered by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1864 of 2017 and this Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 6 allowed the aforesaid writ petition in terms of order dated 25.07.2017, with a direction and observation to the JPSC for taking immediate steps for publication of amended results in terms of Notification. After order of this Court, JPSC came-out with an amended result of Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination, 2016 on 11.08.2017. The State Govt. again issued Circular dated 12.02.2018, whereby it was decided that those candidates, who have secured minimum qualifying marks as mentioned in Circular dated 27.11.2012, will be deemed to be selected for the Mains Examination. The said circular was also matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(S). The State Govt. again issued Circular dated 12.02.2018, whereby it was decided that those candidates, who have secured minimum qualifying marks as mentioned in Circular dated 27.11.2012, will be deemed to be selected for the Mains Examination. The said circular was also matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1452 of 2018 and this Court dismissed the said writ petition in terms of order dated 18.05.2018. After dismissal of the said case, again an amended result was published on 06.08.2018 by the JPSC in compliance of the order passed by this Court. It is very much clear that as per the syllabus mentioned in the advertisement two papers were prescribed for preliminary test, i.e. General Studies Paper-I and General Studies Paper-II having in different subjects and the candidates had to obtain 40% marks in each paper and those, who have secured minimum qualifying marks were only considered and declared successful in the Preliminary Test Examination. The same principles was applied for other categories also and the earlier results, revised results and amended results are based on the same principles. From perusal of the records, it appears that JPSC has adopted uniform pattern and has not deviated from its principle of considering 40% as the minimum qualifying in both the subjects separately i.e. in each paper and not the aggregate. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners belongs to different categories and have not secured minimum qualifying marks either in Paper-I or in Paper-II and as such, they have not been declared successful in the revised result dated 06.08.2018. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the said criteria was never in the advertisement and as such, in case of ambiguity in the advertisement, the benefits must fall in favour of the candidates. The said contention of the petitioner is not acceptable to this Court simply on the ground that a Committee has gone into the same and has since opined what was meant for Preliminary Examination is that 40% minimum marks should be obtained in each paper. As the earlier results, revised results and the amended results were all declared considering the same principles and earlier this Court had already dismissed one writ petition viz. W.P.(S). No. 1452 of 2018 and the petitioner therein had never challenged nor approached this Court regarding the said ambiguity. As the earlier results, revised results and the amended results were all declared considering the same principles and earlier this Court had already dismissed one writ petition viz. W.P.(S). No. 1452 of 2018 and the petitioner therein had never challenged nor approached this Court regarding the said ambiguity. It was only after the stay order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present writ petition was filed. The order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9217 of 2018), is of no help to the present petitioner as it has been clearly held in the said order that, “Since the appellant alone is before us, we make it clear that anything said in the order will not be treated as a precedent” and as such, the present petitioners cannot be benefited out of the said order. The said order was pronounced in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and as such, it was clearly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that anything said in the order will not be treated as a precedent and only the appellant of that case was allowed to appear in the Mains Examination and as such, the present petitioners cannot get favour out of the same. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tanya Malik Vs. the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 162 , in which also the Hon’ble Apex Court has declined to interfere in the recruitment process. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1981) 4 SCC 159 observed that, “The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection based on merit tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services.” In the instant case, in the Rules the minimum cut-off is prescribed and that could not have been relaxed and moreover relaxation is a matter of policy decision of the State. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services.” In the instant case, in the Rules the minimum cut-off is prescribed and that could not have been relaxed and moreover relaxation is a matter of policy decision of the State. As the petitioners have appeared in the examination with the stipulation of minimum cutoff marks as per Rule and precedents followed by JPSC, petitioners having failed in the examination, cannot turn-around and are estopped to contend to the contrary. The students once participated having knowledge that for selection they have to clear the prescribed minimum pass marks and on being unsuccessful, they cannot claim that as they obtained 40% marks in aggregate, they will be allowed to appear in the Mains Examination though as per the Rules, they were required to obtain 40% marks in each subjects. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of K.H. Siraz Vs. High Court of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 has clearly observed that when the candidates participated in the interview with full knowledge that for selection 8 they have to clear the prescribed minimum pass marks, on being unsuccessful in the interview, could not turn around and challenge that the prescription of minimum marks was improper. The same theory was also reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J & K, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 . Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para-23 of the judgment passed in case of Tanya Malik (supra) has held that:- “23. Coming to question whether minimum cut-off marks in the written examination be relaxed from 40% to 33% and whether we should interfere on the ground that as a person who has obtained the highest marks, could not clear one of the papers by narrow margin of one marks. It was also urged that the person having the highest marks has not been called for interview and as he could not clear the minimum percentage in one of the written paper and persons having lesser marks in aggregate have been called for interview. In our opinion minimum passing marks in each of the paper could have been prescribed and that is absolutely necessary so as to adjudge the academic knowledge in various subjects. In our opinion minimum passing marks in each of the paper could have been prescribed and that is absolutely necessary so as to adjudge the academic knowledge in various subjects. Merely by scoring highest marks in general knowledge and language paper is not going to help. Minimum knowledge in other subjects, civil and criminal law was also requisite and that is true for vice versa too, and that is why minimum passing marks had been prescribed and fixation of 40% was quite reasonable and proper and it would be not proper for this Court to interfere in the same. We find no fault in prescribing the minimum passing marks for written papers. It may happen in any examination that a person who is having better aggregate may not fair well in one of the papers and may be declared ‘failed’. That cannot be a ground to order relaxation or to doubt the correctness of the evaluation process. When we were shown the marks of a candidate who secured highest marks, it became apparent that the performance of the candidate in paper general knowledge and language was far better as compared to the performance in civil and criminal papers. Thus when a single examiner, has done valuation, same yardstick has been applied to all the candidates. We find no ground to interfere on the various grounds urged by the petitioners. 10. In the instant case, the petitioners could not secure the minimum cutoff marks in the paper which talked of Jharkhand as a whole. The candidates having not even the knowledge about State of Jharkhand where they are going to be appointed as a Civil Services Officers, rightly have not been selected as they did not even qualify and have not obtained the minimum qualifying marks. The candidates having not even the knowledge about State of Jharkhand where they are going to be appointed as a Civil Services Officers, rightly have not been selected as they did not even qualify and have not obtained the minimum qualifying marks. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners distinguishing the judgment passed in case of Tanya Malik (supra) on the ground that in the said case minimum qualifying marks was mentioned in the advertisement but in the present case, the same has not been mentioned in the advertisement, does not find favour as 40% marks in each of the paper was the policy decision of the State and the same was adopted in all the preliminary test examinations as uniform pattern by the JPSC and also in view of the fact that already revised results have been published on more than two occasions and date of Mains Examination has also been fixed. Further, the examination conducted by the JPSC has already been delayed due to filing of different writ petitions from time to time. As such, this Court restrain itself from interfering in the matter of policy decision of the State Govt. and thus, I find no illegality in not declaring the candidates (present petitioners) qualified, who failed to obtain minimum qualifying marks as per the specifications indicated in para-3 aforesaid. 11. No interference is warranted in the instant writ petitions and resultantly, the same are hereby dismissed.” Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment passed by Co-ordinate learned Single Bench of this Court that passing in each subject since is not referred in the advertisement, as such the same has not been taken as a valid ground for showing interference in the result and therefore, declined to interfere with the policy decision of the State Government, whereby in the preliminary examination the qualifying in each subject has been held to be mandatory. The aforesaid order(Joy Guria case)has never been challenged by the parties and as such it has attained finality. 26. The aforesaid order(Joy Guria case)has never been challenged by the parties and as such it has attained finality. 26. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued at length making the submission that judgment rendered in Joy Guria (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case (subject of instant intra-court appeals) and has wrongly been considered by learned Single Judge by taking its aid in preparation of merit list in the Main examination, but we are not impressed with such argument because of the specific stipulation made in clause no. 13 of the advertisement which speaks that the minimum qualifying marks in all written examination (objective/descriptive) will be at par. Therefore, if the policy of the State Government is that passing in the preliminary examination in each subject is mandatory which has been taken as a policy decision there cannot be reason to deviate from policy decision in passing each subject in the Main examination as per terms and conditions of clause 13 of the advertisement in question. Therefore, according to our considered view argument, which has been advanced that the condition of passing in each subject is not available in the advertisement, is not correct rather the condition is well available as Clause no. 13, if read together with the order passed in Joy Guria (supra). Even otherwise also, learned Single Judge of this Court has taken aid of judgment rendered in Director-General, Telecommunication v. T.N. Peethambaram, [ (1986) 4 SCC 348 ], which pertains to quashing of process of selection conducted by Telecommunication Department for recruitment of Telegraph Engineering Service (Group ‘B’) under Recruitment Rules, 1981, through Limited Departmental Qualifying Examination. The said examination consists of four papers having stipulation that the minimum pass marks in the examination shall be 50 per cent for general candidates and 45 per cent for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates. The Telecommunication Department concluded the process of selection through limited departmental examination by testing the eligibility on the basis of qualifying of one or the other candidates in each subject. The issue went before the CAT on the ground that rule does not speak about qualifying in each subject by one or the other candidates. The Telecommunication Department concluded the process of selection through limited departmental examination by testing the eligibility on the basis of qualifying of one or the other candidates in each subject. The issue went before the CAT on the ground that rule does not speak about qualifying in each subject by one or the other candidates. The Tribunal has accepted the plea of the unsuccessful candidate and finally the matter went before the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “Fails” in one subject, but “passes” the examination! It is nota tongue-in-the-cheek remark, for, passing an examination does not mean passing or securing the minimum passing marks in each subject or item of examination provided the candidate secures the minimum passing marks in aggregate, and he is entitled to be declared as having passed the examination according to the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal hereafter), Hyderabad, which has upheld the aforesaid proposition canvassed by the respondent. The validity of this view is in focus before this Court in the present appeal by special leave. 2. Rule 2 in Appendix III of the Telegraph Engineering Service (Group ‘B’) Recruitment Rules, 1981, for Limited Departmental Qualifying Examination, in the context of which the controversy has arisen, reads thus: 2. Limited Departmental Competitive Examination: (i)(a) Advanced Technical Paper — General .. 100 marks (b) Advanced Technical Paper — Special .. 100 marks (c) General Knowledge and Current Affairs .. 50 marks (d) Assessment of Confidential Reports 75 marks (ii)(a) The minimum pass marks in the examination shall be 50 per cent for general candidates and 45 per cent for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates. This rule was interpreted by the concerned department as requiring the candidates to secure 50 per cent minimum pass marks for the general candidates and 45 per cent minimum pass marks for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in “each” of the four subjects or items The Tribunal has taken the view that the department was wrong in so interpreting the Rule and has formed the opinion that on a true interpretation, the requirement as regards securing minimum pass marks in the examination by the candidates concerned is referable to “aggregate” marks and not to each of the four subjects or items of the examination. It has been overlooked by the Tribunal that the “rule” does not employ the expression “aggregate”, and that it is impossible to inject the said word in the Rule in the disguise of interpretation, as it would lead to absurd results. An illustration will make the “obvious” point “more obvious”. The illustration might be viewed in the scenario of a medical degree examination. Can one who secures zero, say in surgery, but secures high marks in the other papers, so that the minimum aggregate standard is attained, be declared to have passed the examination? Such an interpretation would result in havoc and have catastrophic consequences. Examining the examination rule in the present context, the nihilist result is equally conspicuous. Say, a candidate secures zero in the first paper of Advanced Technology (General), or second paper of Advanced Technology (Special), but secures full marks in the rest of the subjects (or items). He would be securing (0 plus 100 plus 50 plus 75) or (100 plus O plus 50 plus 75) (equal to 225 i.e. 56.25 per cent) minimum passing marks and would be entitled to be declared as having passed and having become entitled to the outflowing preferential treatment. Similar would be the outcome also in a case where a candidate's Confidential Record is bad and he earns no point in that item. Such an interpretation would thus be self-defeating and lead to absurd results, and accordingly, would be contrary to well established canons of construction, not to speak of a common-sense-oriented approach. Since the Rule does not specify a different passing standard for “each” subject, the prescribed minimum passing standard must be the yardstick to apply to each of the subjects or items. Minimum must mean a minimum in each, as much as, minimum in aggregate. The Tribunal should not have therefore upset the decision of the concerned department and imposed on the department the mistaken interpretation propounded by it. Minimum must mean a minimum in each, as much as, minimum in aggregate. The Tribunal should not have therefore upset the decision of the concerned department and imposed on the department the mistaken interpretation propounded by it. In the result, the decision of the Tribunal must be reversed.” Thus, it is evident that subject matter of the Rule of the said case also does not consist of qualifying by one or the other candidates in each such subject rather the qualifying by getting aggregate in total marks but has been discarded by Hon’ble Apex Court on the ground that “rule” does not employ the expression “aggregate”, and that it is impossible to inject the said word in the Rule in the disguise of interpretation, as it would lead to absurd results. Since the Rule does not specify a different passing standard for “each” subject, the prescribed minimum passing standard must be the yardstick to apply to each of the subjects or items. Minimum must mean a minimum in each, as much as, minimum in aggregate. Even in the case of Taniya Malik (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has expressed similar view and held at paragraph 23 as under: “23. Coming to the question whether minimum cut-off marks in the written examination be relaxed from 40% to 33% and whether we should interfere on the ground that as a person who has obtained the highest marks, could not clear one of the papers by narrow margin of one mark. It was also urged that the person having the highest marks has not been called for interview and as he could not clear the minimum percentage in one of the written paper and persons having lesser marks in aggregate have been called for interview. In our opinion minimum passing marks in each of the paper could have been prescribed and that is absolutely necessary so as to adjudge the academic knowledge in various subjects. Merely by scoring highest marks in general knowledge and language paper is not going to help. Minimum knowledge in other subjects, civil and criminal law was also requisite and that is true for vice versa too, and that is why minimum passing marks had been prescribed and fixation of 40% was quite reasonable and proper and it would be not proper for this Court to interfere in the same. Minimum knowledge in other subjects, civil and criminal law was also requisite and that is true for vice versa too, and that is why minimum passing marks had been prescribed and fixation of 40% was quite reasonable and proper and it would be not proper for this Court to interfere in the same. We find no fault in prescribing the minimum passing marks for written papers. It may happen in any examination that a person who is having better aggregate may not fare well in one of the papers and may be declared “failed”. That cannot be a ground to order relaxation or to doubt the correctness of the evaluation process. When we were shown the marks of a candidate who secured highest marks, it became apparent that the performance of the candidate in paper general knowledge and language was far better as compared to the performance in civil and criminal papers. Thus when a single examiner, has done valuation, same yardstick has been applied to all the candidates. We find no ground to interfere on the various grounds urged by the petitioners.” (Emphasis supplied) 27. For the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, according to our considered view also, when the appointment is by way of selection that too the post which is of Class II service of the State to be filled up by the Public Service Commission cannot be expected to be filled up from the candidates who if found to have failed in one or two or three subjects but have got more marks in comparison to those candidates who have passed in all the subjects but got higher marks in aggregate in comparison to such candidate who have passed in all the subjects but lesser in aggregate. The reason being that the suitability and eligibility is fixed under the rule prescribing a particular syllabus. It is incumbent upon the one or the other candidates who have qualified to get minimum marks in each subject apart from getting marks in aggregate to come in the merit list. The reason being that the suitability and eligibility is fixed under the rule prescribing a particular syllabus. It is incumbent upon the one or the other candidates who have qualified to get minimum marks in each subject apart from getting marks in aggregate to come in the merit list. If a candidate who have failed in one or two subjects even though got more marks in aggregate will be allowed to be selected and appointed, it will nothing but compromise to merit and it will lead to absurdity, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Director-General, Telecommunication v. T.N. Peethambaram (supra), as referred above. 28. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants in L.P.A. No. 204 of 2021 (one of the appeals) has tried to distinguish the fact of the present case with the fact of the case of Tanya Mallick (supra) by making submission that there was specific rule to secure minimum mark but here there is no such rule. But that contention is not acceptable to us for two reasons. Firstly, for the reason that there is specific condition as Clause no. 13 in the advertisement which prescribes minimum marks to be obtained at par both in objective and descriptive type examination and secondly the Hon’ble Apex Court has already held in the case of Director-General, Telecommunication v. T.N. Peethambaram (supra) that minimum qualifying marks is mandatory to be obtained in each subjects. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that there is no such rule herein. 29. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of Mr. Gadodia pertaining to the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9217 of 2018 [Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand] to the effect that if there is any ambiguity in advertisement it will go in favour of the candidate and since according to him there is ambiguity in advertisement so the benefit is to be given to the candidate who have been declared to be successful; we, after going through the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, have found from the ultimate paragraph that the said judgment is not to be treated as precedence, therefore, said order is not having its binding effect on the facts of this case, and therefore, the said argument is hereby rejected. 30. 30. Further, so far the submission of the appellants that the writ petitioners once participated in the process of selection cannot be allowed to challenge the entire selection process, we find no substance in this argument taking into consideration the factual aspect and declaring the writ petitioners as unsuccessful as condition stipulated under Clause no. 12, which speaks the minimum qualifying marks both for Preliminary and Main examination, based upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate learned Single Bench of this Court in Joy Guria (supra) and as such it was incumbent upon the JPSC to prepare merit list on the basis of qualifying marks secured by one or the other candidate in each subject and the decision of the JPSC in preparing the merit list on the basis of aggregate marks calculated on the basis of total marks of 1050 has only been acknowledged by the writ petitioners once the result has been published and only then the cause of action has occurred to question before the court of law. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors [ (2019) 20 SCC 17 ] has been pleased to hold that the general principle is that once participated in the process of selection it is not available for the unsuccessful candidates to turn around and question the selection process and hold that if the Clause upon which the candidature of one or the other candidate has been treated to be of a unsuccessful candidate their cause of action will arise only after the result is being published and in that circumstances, the entire selection process can be assailed. Relevant paragraph of the judgment, paragraph nos. 15 to 22 are quoted hereunder as: “Preliminary issues 15. Furthermore, before beginning analysis of the legal issues involved, it is necessary to first address the preliminary issue. The maintainability of the very challenge by the appellant has been questioned on the ground that she having partaken in the selection process cannot later challenge it due to mere failure in selection. The counsel for the respondents relied upon a catena of decisions of this Court to substantiate his objection. 16. The maintainability of the very challenge by the appellant has been questioned on the ground that she having partaken in the selection process cannot later challenge it due to mere failure in selection. The counsel for the respondents relied upon a catena of decisions of this Court to substantiate his objection. 16. It is well settled that the principle of estoppel prevents a candidate from challenging the selection process after having failed in it as iterated by this Court in a plethora of judgments including, Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256], observing as follows: (SCC p. 584, para 16) “16. We also agree with the High Court [Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321 : (2008) 4 PLJR 93 ] that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the appellant is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the appellant's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The [appellant] invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the appellant clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.” [See also: Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712, Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, (2009) 5 SCC 515 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 57] The underlying objective of this principle is to prevent candidates from trying another shot at consideration, and to avoid an impasse wherein every disgruntled candidate, having failed the selection, challenges it in the hope of getting a second chance. 17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. 17. However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process. 18. The question of permissibility of giving weightage for “work experience” in government hospitals is also not the bone of contention in this case. Medicine being an applied science cannot be mastered by mere academic knowledge. Longer experience of a candidate adds to his knowledge and expertise. Similarly, government hospitals differ from private hospitals vastly for the former have unique infrastructural constraints and deal with poor masses. Doctors in such non-private hospitals serve a public purpose by giving medical treatment to swarms of patients, in return for a meagre salary. Hence, when placing emphasis on the requirement of work experience, there is no dispute on such recognition of government hospitals and private hospitals as distinct classes. Instead such recognition ensures that the doctors recruited in not-so-rich States like Bihar have the requisite exposure to challenges faced in those regions. 19. The appellant has thus rightly not challenged the selection procedure but has narrowed her claim to only against the respondents' interpretation of “work experience” as part of merit determination. Since interpretation of a statute or rule is the exclusive domain of courts, and given the scope of judicial review in delineating such criteria, the appellant's challenge cannot be turned down at the threshold. However, we are not commenting specifically on the merit of the appellant's case, and our determination is alien to the outcome of the selection process. It is possible post what is held hereinafter that she be selected, or not. Statutory Interpretation 20. It is a settled canon of statutory interpretation that as a first step, the courts ought to interpret the text of the provision and construct it literally. Provisions in a statute must be read in their original grammatical meaning to give its words a common textual meaning. Statutory Interpretation 20. It is a settled canon of statutory interpretation that as a first step, the courts ought to interpret the text of the provision and construct it literally. Provisions in a statute must be read in their original grammatical meaning to give its words a common textual meaning. However, this tool of interpretation can only be applied in cases where the text of the enactment is susceptible to only one meaning. [Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271 , para 13.] Nevertheless, in a situation where there is ambiguity in the meaning of the text, the courts must also give due regard to the consequences of the interpretation taken. 21. It is the responsibility of the courts to interpret the text in a manner which eliminates any element of hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly. [G.P. Singh on Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edn., 2016, pp. 145-170.] This principle of statutory construction has been approved by this Court in Modern School v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 583 , para 62 : 2 SCEC 577] , by reiterating that a legislation must further its objectives and not create any confusion or friction in the system. If the ordinary meaning of the text of such law is non-conducive for the objects sought to be achieved, it must be interpreted accordingly to remedy such deficiency. 22. There is no doubt that executive actions like advertisements can neither expand nor restrict the scope or object of laws. It is therefore necessary to consider the interpretation of the phrase “government hospital” as appearing in the Rules. Two interpretations have been put forth before us which can be summarised as follows: (a.) Only hospitals run by the Government of Bihar. (b). Hospitals run by the Bihar Government or its instrumentalities, as well as any other non-private hospital within the territory of Bihar. The former interpretation to the term, as accorded to it by the respondents, forms a narrower class whereas the latter interpretation used by the appellant is broader and more inclusive.” 31. (b). Hospitals run by the Bihar Government or its instrumentalities, as well as any other non-private hospital within the territory of Bihar. The former interpretation to the term, as accorded to it by the respondents, forms a narrower class whereas the latter interpretation used by the appellant is broader and more inclusive.” 31. This Court, after considering the order passed by the Co-ordinate learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Joy Guria (Supra)with the assistance of State as also the JPSC since the said judgment has attained finality, therefore, the State as also the JPSC were duty bound to follow their own stand which they have taken before the Co-ordinate learned Single Bench in the case of Joy Guria (supra) basis upon which the order has been passed in the said case as when any order is being passed by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same binds the State as also the JPSC but herein the learned Coordinate Single Bench has come to the conclusive finding that while deviating from their own stand basis upon which the order has been passed by the learned Co-ordinate Single Bench of this Court in the case of Joy Guria (supra) has come to the conclusive finding about the nullity of the merit list. 32. Accordingly, issue no. (ii) and (iii) are answered to the effect that ‘minimum qualifying marks’ in each subject [Main Examination] is correct interpretation, as per the discussion made herein above; and the stand which has been taken by the JPSC as also the State before the Court of law based upon which the order has been passed in Joy Guria (supra) is correct approach, so far minimum qualifying marks in each subject is concerned. 33. This Court, on the basis of discussions made herein above as also the legal position and after perusal of the findings recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference by this Court for the following reasons: (i). 33. This Court, on the basis of discussions made herein above as also the legal position and after perusal of the findings recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference by this Court for the following reasons: (i). The learned Single Judge has come to the rightful conclusion by declaring the merit list nullity for the reason that the Paper–I (Mains Examination) which is qualifying in nature in which only 30 marks is required to be obtained itself suggest that the marks obtained in the said subject is not to be added in preparation of merit list and further for the reason that the syllabus of paper-I [Main Examination] is of Matriculation standard. (ii). If a candidate is declared to be more meritorious on the basis of addition of marks of Paper-I, which is qualifying in nature having syllabus of matriculation standard in comparison to that of the candidate who have secured more marks having syllabus of graduation level, it will be ridiculous as the candidate who have been declared successful on the basis of marks obtained of matriculation standard cannot be equated with the marks obtained by such candidate who have obtained marks on the basis of marks obtained of the syllabus of graduation standard/level. (iii). The learned Single Judge has further not erred in declaring the merit list nullity by declaring the argument advanced on behalf by respondents that the Paper-I being a compulsory subject marks obtained therein is required to be added in merit list to be not tenable, and rightly done so because for the specific remark made for Paper-I by making it only qualifying in nature by obtaining only 30 marks but so far as other compulsory subjects are concerned there is no such stipulation and, therefore, distinction has been carved out in the advertisement itself making difference in between the marks obtained in Paper-I being qualifying in nature by obtaining 30 marks only while in other compulsory papers have been decided to be counted for preparation of merit list of one or the other candidate. It is settled position of law that any Clause either in the Rule or the law is to be taken for its purposive construction and since the subject matter herein is appointment of Class II officers in different departments of the State of Jharkhand by way of conducting Combined Civil Services Examination by the JPSC, its main purpose is to select best amongst the candidates which certainly will not be obtained on the basis of the marks obtained which has been made qualifying in nature and based upon the matriculation standard. (iv). The JPSC has prepared the merit list by taking aggregate marks of total subjects i.e. 1050 marks, which is impermissible as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Director-General, Telecommunication v. T.N. Peethambaram (supra). Learned Single Judge has considered that aspect of the matter, based upon the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case. It is settled principle of law that the public employment if not made in terms of the rules/advertisement the entire selection process will be nullity in the eye of law. The learned Single Judge has discarded such submission in the impugned judgment and rightly done so it is for the reason that there is no ambiguity in the advertisement as would appear from Clause no. 13 of the advertisement which stipulates that the minimum marks for all the written examination (Objective/Descriptive) will be at par for all service/cadre. It further speaks that it will be mandatory for all the candidates to secure 30 marks in Paper I, General Hindi and General English, so far Mains examination is concerned. (v).The learned Single Judge is right in reaching to the conclusion about nullity of the merit list on the basis of ambiguity, if any, but it has been clarified by the Co-ordinate learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Joy Guria (supra) wherein judgment has been passed on the basis of stand of the State and the JPSC to the effect that passing in each subject is mandatory. Once the State and the JPSC has taken such stand in the same selection process it is not available for them to again revert back to their policy decision and that is the reason, subsequently neither the State nor the JPSC has assailed the order passed by learned Co-ordinate Single Judge. Once the State and the JPSC has taken such stand in the same selection process it is not available for them to again revert back to their policy decision and that is the reason, subsequently neither the State nor the JPSC has assailed the order passed by learned Co-ordinate Single Judge. (vi).The learned Single Judge has further considered the fact that the judgment passed in Joy Guria (supra) based upon the stand of the JPSC and the State treating it to be binding effect in a proceeding since it was by a Co-ordinate learned Single Bench of this Court which according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity on the principle of judicial discipline that the order/judgment passed by even Co-ordinate learned Single Bench requires to be followed by other Bench. (vii).The conclusion of learned Single Judge about nullity of the preparation of merit list suffers from no infirmity as the merit list ought to have been prepared in consonance with the Rule but having not done so the same will be treated to be illegal and thus will be nullity since public employment is to be made strictly in terms of Rule and if is contrary the same will be held to be de hors the rule and thus nullity. (viii). So far as the report of the V.S. Dubey Committee is concerned the same will not prevail upon the statutory Rule of 1951 adopted by the State of Jharkhand. Even accepting that the recommendation of V.S. Dubey Committee recommendation has been accepted by the State even then also the recommendation made by the said committee cannot prevail upon statutory Rule framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and that is the reason the State has taken the stand in the case of Joy Guria case necessitating to qualify in the subject by one or the other candidate. Hence preparation of merit list in complete deviation of order passed in Joy Guria (Supra) case is nothing but contrary to the mandate of this Court. Hence preparation of merit list in complete deviation of order passed in Joy Guria (Supra) case is nothing but contrary to the mandate of this Court. It is settled that once the Constitutional Court like the High Court passes the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and having not been reversed by the higher forum/Court it is having binding effect upon the State and its functionaries and, therefore, the State or the JPSC cannot turn around that they will not follow what they have stated before this Court in the case of Joy Guria (supra) by reverting back to the policy decision of passing in each subject making it mandatory. (ix). The learned Single Judge is correct in coming to the conclusion by declaring the merit list to be nullity since the same has been recorded after taking into consideration the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Director-General, Telecommunication v. T.N. Peethambaram (supra) and Tanya Mallick (supra), as discussed above. (x). According to learned Single Judge the Commission is master of its working and of course normally are not entitled to question the mechanism of selection but at the same time illegality has been brought to the knowledge of the Court and the same cannot be ignored and the Court is bound to interfere and said finding based upon the judgment by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Gyan Prakash Srivastava [ (2012) 1 SCC 537 ], where it has been observed that Public Service Commission is a Constitutional body but its suggestions and decisions are not immune from judicial review and if a competent judicial forum found that impugned action is ultra vires in Constitution or to any legislation or is otherwise arbitrary or discriminatory there will be ample justification to nullify the same. Further, in the judgment rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Harayana [ (2008) 2 SCC 161 ] it has been held that the Commission has constitutional duty to see that the entire selection process is carried out strictly in accordance with law, fairly, impartially and independently. Further, in the judgment rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Harayana [ (2008) 2 SCC 161 ] it has been held that the Commission has constitutional duty to see that the entire selection process is carried out strictly in accordance with law, fairly, impartially and independently. The selectors appointed by the Commission or its Chairman and members are formulate to take recourse of the favoritism showing favour to any candidate as an irrelevant established consideration to be contrary to the constitutional norms of the quality envisaged under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, as such according to our considered view also based upon the discussions made herein above the interference shown by the learned Single Judge in the impugned merit list cannot be said to suffer from an error. 34. The learned Single Judge if on these background have come to the conclusive finding about commission of illegality, the same, according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. 35. This Court, based upon the discussions made herein above as also for the reasons aforesaid, is of the view that no interference is required in the order passed by learned Single Judge. 36. Accordingly, the appeals fail and are dismissed. 37. Consequent upon dismissal of the intra-court appeals, all the pending Interlocutory Applications stands disposed of. Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. : I agree