HEEM BACHAN SAHU Vs. JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Jharkhand Public Service Commission to hold fresh interview for recommending the names for appointment/deputation on the post of Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and for quashing the recommendation dated 15.3.2003 sent by the Commission whereby name of respondent No. 6 Dr. K.K. Srivastava and Dr. A.K. Srivastava only have been recommended for appointment on the post of Director, Higher Education.

(2.) PETITIONERS ' case is that they are holding the post of University Professor and/or Reader in the different department of Ranchi University. The post of Director, Higher Education in the erstwhile State of Bihar was always occupied by University Professor on the basis of appointment/deputation from teaching cadre of the University. In 2001 by Notification dated 1.6.2001 respondent No. 6 was appointed on deputation as Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Jharkhand. The said notification was challenged in W.P.S. No. 5946/2001. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.6.2002 directing the respondents to fill up the post by regular appointment/ posting after taking into consideration all relevant guidelines and candidature of all the eligible candidates. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the Commission sent letter to the Registrar of three Universities namely, Ranchi University, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and Sidhoo Kanhoo University, Dumka, calling the names of eligible candidates. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter all the petitioners applied for the said post alongwith their bio -data, as they are eligible for being considered and for appointment on the post of Higher Education. It is alleged by the petitioners that in mysterious way and at the behest of some influential person only five candidates were called for interview, i.e., one from Ranchi University, one from Sidhoo Kanhoo University, Dumka, two from Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and one respondent No. 6 Dr. K.K. Srivastava. The Commission finally recorded the names of two persons including respondent No. 6.

(3.) MR . A.K. Sinha, learned Advocate General on the other hand firstly submitted that Commission sent panel of two candidates for appointment on the post of Director, Higher Education and the matter is under consideration of the Government. According to the learned counsel post of Director, Higher Education is single post and does not require any reservation and the post is open for the candidates of all categories having requisite qualification as fixed by the State Government. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot question selection process and it is not open for the Court to scrutinise the decision of the Selection Committee. Learned counsel put reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434, in the case of Jatinder Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1985 (3) SLR 60 and in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1999 (2) SLR 444.