Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 77 (JHR)

Anup Kumar Mehta v. State of Jharkhand

2022-01-12

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for calling in interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Backlog) for the subject of History under Backward Class-II category in different Universities situated within the State of Jharkhand pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2018 issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to paragraph 21 of the writ petition, submits that the petitioner deserved to be awarded 53.25 marks out of 85 marks and should have been declared qualified to be called for interview as according to his information, the candidates securing lesser marks than him in B.C-II category, have been called for interview. According to the petitioner, he has been awarded only 51.25 marks out of 85 marks as he has been given 03 marks for ‘Publication’ instead of 05 marks for the same. It is thus submitted that if the petitioner is awarded 05 marks for ‘Publication’, he will qualify to be called for interview. 4. Mr. Sanjay Piiprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC, on instruction, submits that after re-assessment, the petitioner has provisionally been found to have secured 52.75 marks including 4.50 marks re-given for ‘Publication’ whereas the last candidate called for interview under B.C-II category has been allotted 54.15 marks as per Clause 6(iv) of the said advertisement. Even if the petitioner’s claim that he should have been awarded 53.25 marks, is considered, the same would be less than 54.15 marks secured by the last candidate called for interview under BC-II category. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case so as to seek any relief under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.