SHAHLA JABEEN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI : PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that the petitioner has not selected by the Interviewing Committee of Jharkhand Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer in the subject of physics in pursuance of the public advertisement dated 31st January, 2007, which is annexed at Annexure -5 to the memo of the present petition. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is duly eligible and qualified for being appointed as Lecturer of physics. The petitioner is even on today teaching the subject of physics in college. The Interviewing Committee has not properly appreciated the qualifications and teaching experience of the present petitioner. The petitioner is a doctorate degree holder. Unreasonable excessive marks have been fixed for interview process and, therefore also, the selection process by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner ought to have been selected by the respondents for the post of Lecturer of physics.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, who has vehemently submitted that the dispute or the grievances ventilated by the petitioner is no res integra. This dispute has already been decided by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 270 of 2008 vide order dated 20th March, 2009 and the detailed reason order has been passed by this Court about the fixation of marks in the oral interview as well as about the qualifications and the process of interview. Secondly, in W.P. (C) No. 881 of 2008 with W.P. (C) No. 1069 of 2008, this Court has taken decision vide order dated 21st July, 2009 and the similarly situated petitions have been dismissed and it has been upheld by this Court that action taken by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission is true, correct, legal and in consonance with law, even otherwise also subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Interviewing Committee cannot be judicially reviewed by this Court in exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The allotment of marks is 60% for educational qualifications of the candidates and 40% for oral interview, as there is no written test of the candidates. For knowing the latest knowledge of candidates and such other qualities of the candidates, 40% marks have been fixed for oral interview. Even as per Section 57 (2) (b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Act has been followed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Thus, there is no illegality in the process of selection and the subjective satisfaction of the Interviewing Committee, cannot be challenged in the Court of law. All that depends upon the performance of the candidates in comparison with other candidates and looking to the comparative performance before the Interviewing Committee, the candidates are being selected for the appointment and in the selection process, the petitioner has appeared in the interview and is not selected by the Interviewing Committee of Jharkhand Public Service Commission.

(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I see no reason to quash and set aside the selection process or selection or both, for the post of Lecturer, by the respondents. There is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.