IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 881 of 2008
With
W.P. (C) No. 1069 of 2008
Shalini Kumari Sharma ... Petitioner
(In W.P. (C) No. 881 of 2008)
Dr. Anil Murmu & ors. ... Petitioners
(In W.P. (C) No. 1069 of 2008)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others ... Respondents
(In both cases)
.............
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
.............
For the Petitioners Mr. Sumeet Gadodia (In both cases)
For the J.P.S.C. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall (In both cases)
………….
/ Dated: 21st of July, 2009
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is
challenging the non-selection of the present petitioners by the
Jharkhand Public Service Commission as a Lecturer. In
pursuance of the public advertisement dated 31st January, 2007,
the petitioners appeared in the interview/viva-voce test and,
thereafter, they were evaluated by the Interviewing Committee
and looking to the over all performance of the present
petitioners, the marks were allotted and were arranged in
seriatim. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that fixation of 40% marks for the viva-voce test is an arbitrary
action and, therefore, the selection process of the respondents
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission, who has submitted that in pursuance of
Section 57 (2) (b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000,
the prescribed procedure has been followed by the Jharkhand
Public Service Commission, which is only the viva-voce test.
Interviewing Committee was appointed by the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission and the candidates’ interviews were taken
including of the present petitioners. Marks were allotted by the
Interviewing Committee to the present petitioners and other
candidates and, thereafter, the petitioners were arranged in
seriatim. Looking to the marks of the present petitioners, the
petitioners are not selected for the post of Lecturers and,
therefore, the petitioners are now challenging the allotment of
40% marks for the viva-voce test and 60% for educational
qualification. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the
2
Jharkhand Public Service Commission that this issue has
already been decided by this Court vide order dated 20th March,
2009 in W.P. (C) No. 270 of 2008 and it has been held by this
Court that there is no procedural illegality in fixing 40% marks
for viva-voce test for the selection of the Lecturers, in pursuance
of public advertisement dated 31st January, 2007. The detailed
judgment has been delivered by this Court referring all the
earlier judgments relevant to the facts of the case and applicable
to the candidates in the aforesaid order and, therefore, the
petitions deserve to be dismissed.
3. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case especially
Section 57 (2) (b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000
and looking to the public advertisement dated 31st January,
2007 as well as looking to the publication in the daily newspaper
on 16th March, 2007 and also looking to the several judgments
referred in the decision rendered by this Court dated 20th March,
2009 in W.P. (C) No. 270 of 2008, there is no procedural
irregularity or illegality in the selection process of the candidates
for the post of Lecturers. Allocation of marks for viva-voce test
can not be labelled as an arbitrary, capricious or malafide
because there is no written test held in the present case because
it is not required statutorily under Section 57 of the Act, 2000.
When the Lecturers are to be appointed, their educational
qualifications etc. are to be properly appreciated and, therefore,
60% marks are allotted to the educational qualification, and the
educational achievements, but, it may happen that some
candidates might have studied a part of the syllabus. Likewise
part of a new syllabus might not have studied at all by those
candidates. Therefore, to check their knowledge about the newly
added syllabus, 40% of the marks have been allotted to the viva-
voce test, can not be said to be an arbitrary action, on the
contrary, there is a valid and convincing logic for fixing 40%
marks for viva-voce test. Whenever the Jharkhand Public Service
Commission is selecting a candidate, all care ought to have been
taken by the Commission so that a candidate is having a full
knowledge of the latest syllabus of a particular faculty, may be
selected, otherwise, if 100% are to be allotted for educational
qualification, there are all chances for selection of those
candidates, who have never studied the new syllabus, but, have
secured higher marks during their graduation or post graduation
3
study and they will be selected, but, that is not a correct or
healthy method of a selection and, therefore, rightly the
weightage has been given by the Jharkhand Public Service
Commission to evaluate a candidate from the view point of
knowledge of latest syllabus.
4. There is also one more reason for allotment of 40% marks
for the viva-voce test. A cardinal principle for taking viva-voce
test is to check the suitability of the candidate for the relevant
post. Higher percentage of marks during graduation or post
graduation sometimes is not helpful for the appointment on the
post. Academic qualification is not the sole criteria. Whether
the candidate is promptly giving answer or not, what type of
behaviour the candidate is having, what is the temperament of
the candidate, especially when cornered questions are asked,
tolerance power of the candidate and promptness and presence
of mind and such other abilities will be checked in viva-voce test
and, therefore, oral interview and its fixation of marks of 40% in
the facts of the present case can not be labelled as an arbitrary
action.
5. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the
petitioners that the ratio of 40% and 60% is not matching with
each other. More marks should have been allotted to the
educational qualification. This contention is not accepted by this
Court mainly for the reason that the higher percentage of marks
in graduation or post graduation, sometimes is not giving the
ability of teaching because teaching is an art and several other
factors are to be checked of particular candidate as stated
hereinabove, teachers have to deal with young students. This is
the only contention raised in this petition otherwise, several
contentions have already been raised by other candidates and
they have dealt with in earlier writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No.
270 of 2008 and in view of this decision also, there is no
substance in this petition and, hence, the same is hereby
dismissed.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
Ajay/