ROHAN THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ application has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order or direction commanding upon the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission to constitute an Interview Board for conducting interview of the petitioner under C.C.T.V. camera maintaining transparency as well as the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Civil Judge (Junior Division), a special case if the petitioner is finally selected after viva-voce test. The alternative prayer is for issuance of quashing of Advertisement No.10/2015 (Annexure-2) issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment of 46 Civil Judge (Junior Division) as well as for quashing the Clause No.13 of the said advertisement on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to law settled with regard to allocation of percentage of marks to the interview in case of competitive examination involving candidates where nil experience is made eligible by rules. Further prayer is for quashing the Rule 16(d) of Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 prescribing for fixation of a minimum qualifying marks in the interview and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being in the teeth of the Shetty Commission recommendation which has been one of the basis behind legislation of the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment), Rules, 2004 and to issue appropriate writ/order/direction upon the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to upload and publish on official website the results declared by it of Preliminary, Mains and interview of all competitive examinations held by it along with details of Roll number, name and category of all the candidates who participated in such examinations along with marks obtained by them.

(2.) The short fact of the case is that Jharkhand Public Service Commission advertised total vacancy of Civil Judge (Junior Division) giving details of vacancy category wise 23 posts as Unreserved, 05 posts for Scheduled Caste, 12 posts for Backward Class-I and 01 post for Backward Class-II and invited application through Advertisement No.10 of 2015 from persons having degree of law and enrolled as an Advocate under Advocate Act, 1961 having age between age group of 22-35 years as on 31.01.2005. Petitioner fulfilling all requirements as per the advertisement, applied for the post and was allowed to appear in the preliminary test. Being successful, provisional admit card for appearing in the main examination was issued. After declaration of result of main examination, petitioner did not find his Roll number in the list of successful candidates and then he tried to obtain information from the officials of Jharkhand Public Service Commission to know about the cut-off marks of B.C.-I candidate who were called for interview and also to know marks obtained by the petitioner. As the petitioner could not get the information, he filed an application under R.T.I. Act and thereafter Jharkhand Public Service Commission supplied incomplete information at the appellate stage by which he could knew that although the petitioner has obtained total 183 marks in the main examination and the cut-off marks was for the B.C.-I candidate was 178 but his name was in the list of successful candidate. Then the petitioner represented his case to the Chairman of Jharkhand Public Service Commission requesting him to look into his case and do justice but no reply was received. Petitioner passed his L.L.B. examination on 09.10.2013 and got himself enrolled as an Advocate vide Enrolment No.JH 76 of 2014 and also got certificate of practice from Bar Council of India dated 25.10.2014 and he started practicing in Jharkhand High Court as well as in Civil Court, Ranchi. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi advertised online Advertisement No.10 of 2015 for appointment to the post of 46 Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 25.08.2018 and this petitioner applied and got registration number 10008076. His application was found in order during scrutiny and was issued provisional admit card bearing Roll No.15100186 so that he could appear in the Preliminary Test examination on 25.06.2016. Jharkhand Public Service Commission declared the result of Preliminary Test examination on its website and the Roll Number 15100186 was in the list of successful candidate. Thereafter, provisional admit card was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission allowing him to appear in the main examination which was scheduled on 04.03.2017 and 05.03.2017. The further case is that after declaration of result of main examination on 11.08.2017 by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on its website, the petitioner did not find his Roll Number in the list of successful candidate and became ineligible to appear for the Viva-Voce test. The petitioner then filed an application on 23.10.2017 to the Jan Suchana Padadhikari, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi and requested for altogether 11 information along with requisite Challan but partial information was supplied to him. Thereafter, he approached the First Appellate Officer of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. He could know from such authority that he had secured total 183 marks in the main examination and the cut-off marks for B.C.-I candidate was only 178, whom Jharkhand Public Service Commission had called for interview, but the petitioner was not called for the same. To fill the backlog vacancy of 20 post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Advertisement No.11 of 2015 was issued where this petitioner was selected for the interview test where he appeared before the Interview Board on 27.04.2017 and he got only 13 marks. Hence, he wants this Court to invalidate the prescription of minimum qualifying marks in interview be held as arbitrary and unconstitutional on the ground of being contrary to the mandate of Shetty Commission recommendation. There is also challenge to Rule 21(b) of Jharkhand High Court Rules of Civil Judge (Junior Division) appointments which prescribes for one year training by the Judicial Academy to the selected candidate as well as Rule 16(d) of Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 prescribing for fixation of minimum qualifying marks in interview as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and the same cannot be made applicable to the examination process of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Jharkhand Public Service Commission had accepted petitioner's O.B.C. certificate in requisite form which was applied online and treated the petitioner as a candidate under reserved category throughout the process of preliminary examination and during the main examination. Clause 16 (Gha) of the Advertisement No.10 of 2015 provides for absolute nullification of the reservation certificates submitted after the cut-off date is beyond the scope of permissible regulation and it infringes the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioner's case is that Clause 16(Gha) thereof is liable to be struck down. The conduct of Jharkhand Public Service Commission was bad in law as it treated the petitioner under unreserved category without giving an opportunity of hearing. Requirement with regard to eligibility condition cannot be equated with cut-off date requirement relating to submission of O.B.C. certificate seeking benefits of reservation. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner's father retired from the post of Trammer from Central Coalfields Limited in the year 2004 and his last drawn salary was Rs.9283/- and his pension was fixed at Rs.1945/- per month. O.B.C. certificate issued to petitioner on 28.03.2017 certifies that petitioner's father had annual income below of Rs.6,00,000/- for three consecutive financial years i.e. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16. Therefore, this petitioner is not under the category of creamy layer. The name of petitioner was left out due to negligence of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Reason for non- inclusion of name of this petitioner and the list of successful candidate by Jharkhand Public Service Commission is non- compliance of Clause 16(Gha). Therefore, Jharkhand Public Service Commission should be directed to publish the results of all three stages of examination i.e. Preliminary Test, Main Examination and Interview and result of all candidates, stake-holders be published for maintaining transparency in the process. This will minimize the scope of arbitrariness and mala fide practice and would minimize the scope of abuse of individual right under Right To Information Act. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that in the case of M.S. Pushpa Versus Government, NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281 the Hon'ble Court held that the candidate who submitted certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement even then the Court considered and directed the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner under O.B.C. category and announce the result making available the relaxation to the O.B.C. candidates. Similarly, the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has also held while disposing L.P.A, No.610 of 2017 which was filed for acceptance of caste and residential certificate which were submitted beyond stipulated time and had dismissed the L.P.A. preferred by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission.