Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

406
the case of B.E.T.-N.E.T. Association (Supra) and in accordance with the provisions of the Jharkhand
State Universities Act, 2000. The minimum qualification for appointment to the posts of lecturers was
also categorically stated in the advertisement.
The advertisement had also declared that in pursuance of the Rule contained in Section 57(2)(b) of
the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (Amended upto date), the selection is to be made only on
the basis of interview/viva voce test.
Before starting the interview, a joint meeting, headed by the Chairman and comprising of one
senior member of the Association, the Vice-chancellors of the different universities, the Deputy Director,
Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the nominees of the
State Government and the Principals of a few colleges, was held. It was unanimously proposed and
resolved at the meeting to allocate 60 marks for the academic qualifications and 40 marks for the
interview and to commence the interview from 29.03.2007. Such decision was also placed on the
Website for information to all concerned and it was also published in the daily Newspapers on
16.03.2007. A High Power Interview Board, was constituted. After conducting the interview, a
panel of the selected candidates was prepared in accordance with the results along with the
Commission’s recommendations for appointment of the successful candidates to the posts of lecturers
in the various Colleges.
Jharkhand PSC
7. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for he Respondent-J.P.S.C., would explain that in
laying down the selection process adopted in the present case, the Respondent-J.P.S.C. has strictly
acted in terms of the Guidelines/regulations of the U.G.C and the J.P.S.C. has not violated any norms
and regulations either to the U.G.C. or the directions contained in the judgments passed either by this
Court or by the Supreme Court in any of the cases referred to by the petitioner. Learned counsel
argues further that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case (supra),
would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as because the facts of the
Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case refer to a competitive examination, consisting of a written examination
followed by viva-voce Test and it was in the light of such facts that the Apex Court had observed that
the marks allocated for the viva-voce tests, should not exceed 12.2 percent of the total marks. In the
present selection process, which is under challenge, the selection has been made only on the basis of
interview and not after conducting any written examination.