ABHAY SHANKAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the respondents have fixed 40% of the marks for interview, which is an arbitrary action for the selection process for the post of Lecturer and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) I have heard learned counsels appearing for the respondents, who have submitted that this dispute has already been decided by this Court in more than half a dozen similarly situated writ petitions by long speaking orders. It is further submitted by learned counsels for the respondents that as per Section 57 (2)(b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, written test is not required to be taken for the selection of the candidates for the post of Lecturer and, therefore, interview has been fixed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and 60% of the marks have been allotted to the educational qualifications and educational achievements etc. and remaining 40% of the marks have been allotted to the performance of the candidates in a oral interview and, therefore, oral interview is being taken by the Committee, appointed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Learned counsels for the respondents have also submitted that in the writ petitions bearing W.P.(S) No. 6179 of 2008 vide order dated 4th November, 2009, W.P.(S) No. 6251 of 2008 vide order dated 9th October, 2009, W.P.(C) No. 881 of 2008 with W.P.(C) No. 1069 of 2008 vide order dated 21st July, 2009, W.P.(C) No. 270 of 2008 vide order dated 20th March, 2009 and in W.P.(S) No. 904 of 2008 vide order dated 25th August, 2009, it has been held by this Court that the allotment of 40% of the marks for the oral interview for the selection of a candidate for the post of Lecturer is not an arbitrary action and the same has been held as a valid one and, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) IN view of this decision and in view of the other decisions also as stated hereinabove, there is no substance is this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.