Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—Since common question of fact and law has been raised in all these six writ applications, as such, all writ applications are heard together and are being disposed by a common order. 2. These writ applications have been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the notice, dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure P 9 to CWJC No. 10669 of 2024), by which the respondent-Bihar State University Service Commission has shortlisted the candidates for calling them for the purpose of interview on the basis of marks obtained by them under educational qualifications as per the parameters given in the Advertisement No. AP-MATH-23/20-21, dated 21.09.2020, for appointment as Assistant Professors in different Universities of Bihar in different subjects. 3. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to the Bihar State University Service Commission (in short, ‘the Commission’) to allow them to appear in the interview, to be started from 22.07.2024 to 26.07.2024, and thereafter to publish the final merit list in their respective subjects on the basis of their performance in the educational qualification and interview. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, referring to Clause 7 of the Advertisement regarding selection process, particularly, Clause 7.2, submits that in the English version of the Advertisement, it is not mentioned that criteria for shortlisting of the candidates have been laid down for calling them for interview. They, however, submit that in the Hindi version of the Advertisement, at Clause 7.2, it has been mentioned that the criteria for shortlisting the candidates, as prescribed in Table-1, are for the purpose of interview. It is further submitted that as per Clause 7.1 of the Advertisement, the shortlisting of the candidates on the basis of criteria fixed under the Table given in Clause 7.2 of the Advertisement is not for calling the candidates for the purpose of interview. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that taking note of the selection criteria at Clause 7.2 of the Advertisement, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted interim relief in favour of the petitioners of CWJC Nos. 10073 and 10068 of 2024, directing the Commission to allow the petitioners to appear in the interview for the post of Assistant Professors in their respective subjects. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Park Leather Industry (P) Limited and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 135 . 10073 and 10068 of 2024, directing the Commission to allow the petitioners to appear in the interview for the post of Assistant Professors in their respective subjects. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Park Leather Industry (P) Limited and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 135 . 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners lastly submits that the thrust of their argument is the interim order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, in CWJC Nos. 10073 and 10068 of 2024. 7. Learned Counsel for the Commission places reliance on the Statutes for appointment as Assistant Professor in the Universities of Bihar, 2020, and submits that as per Clause 3.6.2 of the Statutes, the procedure for interview shall be decided by the Commission. Clause 3.7 of the Statutes deals with scrutiny and shortlisting of candidate, which says that shortlisting of candidate shall be based on the points scored by them in academic qualification and academic achievements as enumerated in Table- 1. Clause 3.9 of the Statutes prescribes number of candidates to be called for interview and says that the number of candidates to be called for interview shall be decided by the Commission. 8. Upon conjoint reading of Clauses 3.6.2, 3.7 and 3.9 of the Statutes, it is manifest that scrutiny of applications forms and shortlisting of candidates is to be done solely for the purpose for calling the candidates for interview. 9. Further Clause 3.6.2 read with Clause 5.7 of the Statutes reflects that the power has been given to the Commission to call candidates for the interview on the basis of the procedure decided by it. 10. In terms of Clause 3.9 of the Statutes, the Commission, in its resolution, dated 19.06.2020, has decided to call three times the number of vacancies advertised in each category for the purpose of interview and on that basis, the cut off marks for calling the candidates for the interview is decided. 11. The issue with regard to determination of cut off marks and the eventuality where the number of candidates securing the cut off marks was more than three times of the number of vacancies was raised before this Court by a candidate in CWJC No. 1412 of 2023 (Dr. 11. The issue with regard to determination of cut off marks and the eventuality where the number of candidates securing the cut off marks was more than three times of the number of vacancies was raised before this Court by a candidate in CWJC No. 1412 of 2023 (Dr. Pranav Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Others), wherein this Court, vide order, dated 31.01.2023, allowed the Commission to take a decision at its own level on this issue. 12. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Commission, in its 97th Meeting held on 19.04.2023, decided to allow candidates who had obtained cut off marks even beyond three times the number of vacancies to participate in the interview. 13. In the Hindi version of the Advertisement, Clause 7.2 clearly states that shortlisting would be for the purpose of interview and the word ^^lk{kkRdkj** (interview) is clearly mentioned. There is no irreconcilable discrepancy between the English and Hindi version of the Advertisement. The petitioners did not obtain cut off marks. 14. Learned Counsel also argued that in case of conflict between Hindi version and the English version, the contents of the Hindi version shall prevail in view of the Bihar Official Language Act, 1950 and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court on this issue, in the case of Dr. Sachidanand Sinha vs. The Collector, Patna, and Others, reported in 1989 PLJR 1141 . He also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court, in the cases of Balbir Kaur and Another vs. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and Others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 1 , and Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh vs. Associated Distributors Limited, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 409 . 15. He lastly argued that Hindi version of the Advertisement as well as the provisions of the Statutes for appointment were not placed before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the time of passing of the interim order. 16. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned and have gone through the terms of the Advertisement and the Statutes, along with other materials available on record. 17. Both versions of the Advertisement, i.e. Hindi and English, have been placed on record by learned Counsel for the petitioners. Clause 7.2 of the Hindi version of the Advertisement lays down that shortlisting would be done for the purpose of interview. 17. Both versions of the Advertisement, i.e. Hindi and English, have been placed on record by learned Counsel for the petitioners. Clause 7.2 of the Hindi version of the Advertisement lays down that shortlisting would be done for the purpose of interview. The word ^^lk{kkRdkj** (interview) is clearly mentioned in the Advertisement. Clause 7.2 of the Hindi Version of the Advertisement is quoted herein below:— ^^7-2 fo'ofo|ky; esa lgk;d Ákè;kidksa ds in gsrq lk{kkRdkj ds fy, vH;fFkZ;ksa ds p;u lacaèkh ekunaM fuEufyf[kr rkfydk ds vuq:i fd;k tk;sxk%& rkfydk Øe la[;k 'kS{kf.kd fjdkMZ Ldksj ¼vadksa esa½ 1- Lukrd 80 Áfr'kr ,oa mlls Åij ¾ 15 60 Áfr'kr ,oa mlls T;knk rFkk 80 Áfr'kr ls de ¾ 13 55 Áfr'kr ,oa mlls T;knk vkSj 60 Áfr'kr ls de ¾ 10 45 Áfr'kr ls T;knk vkSj 55% ls de ¾ 05 Áfr'kr 2- LukrdksÙkj 80 Áfr'kr ,oa mlls Åij ¾ 25 60 Áfr'kr ,oa mlls T;knk rFkk 80 Áfr'kr ls de ¾ 13 55 Áfr'kr ,oa mlls T;knk ¼vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tu tkfr@chŒlhŒ1@ chŒlhŒ2 ,oa fnO;kax dh fLFkfr esa 50 Áfr'kr rFkk 60 Áfr'kr ds de ¾ 20 3- ihŒ,pŒMhŒ 30 4-1 tsŒvkjŒ,QŒ ds lkFk usV 07 4-2 usV 05 4-3 LysV@lsV 03 5- ^^'kksèk Ádk'ku lehf{kr (peer reviewed) vFkok fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx }kjk lwphc} tuZy esa Ádkf'kr ÁR;sd 'kksèk Ádk'ku gsrq 2 vad** 10 6- f'k{k.k@iksLV MkWDVksjy dk     vuqHko ¼ÁR;sd ,d o"kZ ds fy, 02 vad½ 10 7 iqjLdkj% vfèkdre vad 03 7-1 vUrjkZ"Vªh;@jk"Vªh; Lrj   (vUrjkZ"Vªh; laxBu@Hkkjr ljdkj@Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr jk"Vªh; Lrj ds laLFkkvksa }kjk iqjLdkj fn, tkus dh fLFkfr esa) 03 7-2 jkT; Lrj ¼jkT; ljdkj   }kjk iqjLdkj fn, tkus dh fLFkfr esa½ 02 rFkkfi] ;fn f'k{k.k@iksLV MkWDVksjy vuqHko dh vofèk 1 o"kZ ls de gksus dh fLFkfr esa vad lekuqikfrd :i ls ?kVk, tk,axsA budk ykHk lacafèkr fo'ofo|ky; ds dqylfpo }kjk ÁfrgLrk{kfjr Áek.k&i= ds vkèkkj ij feysxkA uksV% ¼d½ (i) ihŒ,pŒMhŒ 30 vad (ii) tsŒvkjŒ,QŒ@usV@lsV vfèkdre 07 vad (iii) iqjLdkj dksfV esa vfèkdre 03 vad ¼[k½ vdknfud Ldksj 80 vad 'kksèk Ádk'ku 10 vad f'k{k.k vuqHko 10 vad dqy 100 vad 18. In Clause 7.2 of the English version of the Advertisement, the criteria for shortlisting of candidate for the purpose of Assistant Professor is mentioned, but the word ‘interview’ is missing in that clause. 19. Clause 3.6.2 of the Statutes says that procedure for interview shall be decided by the Commission. In Clause 7.2 of the English version of the Advertisement, the criteria for shortlisting of candidate for the purpose of Assistant Professor is mentioned, but the word ‘interview’ is missing in that clause. 19. Clause 3.6.2 of the Statutes says that procedure for interview shall be decided by the Commission. Clause 3.7 of the Statutes lays down that scrutiny and shortlisting of candidates shall be based on the points scored by them in academic qualification and academic achievements, as enumerated in Table-1. Table-1, as mentioned in the Statutes, is part of the Advertisement. Clause 3.9 of the Statutes says that number of candidates to be called for interview shall be decided by the Commission. 20. It is the specific case of the Commission that the Commission, in terms of Clauses 3.7 and 3.9 of the Statutes, in its resolution passed in its 24th Meeting held on 19.06.2020, has decided that the number of candidates to be called for interview will normally be three times of the advertised vacancies, but the Commission may increase this number if it deem necessary to accommodate and ensure availability of requisite number of candidates in certain categories. On the basis of the above, the cut off marks for interview of candidates is decided. It is also relevant to notice that pursuant to the direction of this Court, in CWJC No. 1412 of 2023, the Commission, in its 97th Meeting held on 19.04.2023, decided to allow candidates who obtained cut off marks even beyond three times the number of vacancies to participate in the interview. 21. Section 2 of the Bihar Official Language Act, 1950, says as follows:— “2. Official language.—Subject to the provisions of Articles 346, 347 and 348 of the Constitution of India, the language to be used for the official purposes of the State shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.” 22. In the case of Associated Distributors Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the official language of the State of Uttar Pradesh is Hindi and if any difference is found between the notifications in English and Hindi, the notification issued in Hindi will be applicable. 23. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Khichri Ram vs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 265 , relying upon the Full Bench decision, in the case of Dr. 23. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Khichri Ram vs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 265 , relying upon the Full Bench decision, in the case of Dr. Sachidanand Sinha (supra), held that in a case of conflict between Hindi and English version, the language of the State, being Hindi, it is the Hindi version which will prevail. Therefore, in case of conflict between Hindi and English version, the Hindi version shall prevail. 24. The Supreme Court, in the case of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2022) 11 SCC 392 , has decided that in case of conflict between the terms of the advertisement and service regulation, the service regulation shall prevail. 25. If the terms of the Advertisement in Clause 7.2 of the Hindi Version, the provisions of the Statute and Clause 7.2 of the English version of the Advertisement are read together, there is no iota of doubt that shortlisting of the candidates is to be done as per the parameters/criteria prescribed for the purpose of interview. 26. The responsibility of the Court is to interpret the executive action, like advertisement, in the manner which eliminates any element of hardship, injustice, absurdity or inconvenience. Where there is ambiguity in the meaning of the text, the Court must also give due regard to the consequence of the interpretation done. If Clause 7.2 of the English version of the Advertisement is interpreted in the manner that shortlisting is done not for the purpose of interview, the consequence would be that thousands of thousands of candidates who have applied for appointment as Assistant Professor under various subjects would be required to be called for interview, causing great hardship to the Commission in selection process, particularly when the Commission, under its authority, has decided to call the candidates after shortlisting for interview to the extent of three times the number of vacancies advertised and on that basis, cut off marks is decided. 27. Considering the aforesaid discussion, on the fact as well as on law, I come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to be called for interview unless they secure the cut off marks notified by the Commission under various categories, vide its notice, dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure P 9 to CWJC No. 10669 of 2024). 28. 27. Considering the aforesaid discussion, on the fact as well as on law, I come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to be called for interview unless they secure the cut off marks notified by the Commission under various categories, vide its notice, dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure P 9 to CWJC No. 10669 of 2024). 28. These writ applications are, accordingly dismissed. 29. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Commission, during the course of shortlisting, has not awarded the marks correctly to the candidates, as per the parameters/criteria under Table-1 of Clause 7.2 of the Advertisement. 30. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the issue of incorrect marks awarded by the Commission and the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise this issue by way of separate writ petition. 31. The statement of marks obtained by the petitioner of CWJC No. 10669 of 2024 was produced by the Commission before this Court in a sealed cover. The Court opened the envelop and found that the petitioner has not secured the cut off marks fixed for unreserved category. The envelope containing the statement of marks has been re-sealed by the Court Master and the same has been handed over to Mr. Harsh Singh, learned Counsel for the Commission.