Judgment:
ORDER
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:
I) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) directing and commanding upon the concerned respondents to show cause as to why and under what authority they have changed/altered the Minimum Qualifying Marks i.e., Cut off Marks FOR ELIGIBILITY TEST FOR LECTURESHIP - 2006 conducted by J.P.S.C.-JET CELL (Advertisement dated 19.07.2006 vide Advertisement No. 01-JET) subsequent to the advertisement and after appearing in the Test, without giving/issuing any prior notice, contrary to the terms and conditions as prescribed in Advertisement No. 01-JWT dated 19.07.2006.
II) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) directing and commanding upon the concerned respondents to show cause as to why and under what circumstances they have gone beyond the prospectus, prescribed terms and conditions as mentioned in the Advertisement No. 01-JET dated 19.07.2006 and changed/altered the minimum qualifying marks i.e., Cut off Marks of J.P.S.C.-JET for Lectureship-2006 subsequent to the advertisement and appearing in Test.
III) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) upon the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and declare his result of J.P.S.C-JET for Lectureship-2006 (Jharkhand Public Service Commission-Jharkhand Eligibility Test) as per the terms and conditions prescribed/mentioned in the Advertisement No. 01-JET dated 19.07.2006.
IV) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) upon the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and declare him as Successful candidate for the test conducted by J.P.S.C.-JET for Lectureship-2006 (Jharkhand Public Service Commission-Jharkhand Eligibility Test) considering the fact that he has obtained/scored more than the minimum qualifying marks as per the terms and conditions prescribed/mentioned in the Advertisement No. 01-JET dated 19.07.2006.
2. The short facts, in brief, are set out as under:
An advertisement was published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to J.P.S.C.) in the newspaper 'Hindustan' on 20.07.2006, inviting application for eligibility test for the post of lectureship. As per the scheme and date of test in the advertisement it was mentioned as under:
Scheme and Date of Test
(1) The test will consist of three papers. All the three papers will be held on the same day in two separate sessions.
Session
Paper
Marks
Duration
First
Ist
100
1 Hours (09:30 A.M. to 10:45 A.M.)
First
IInd
100
1 Hours(10:45 A.M. to 12:00 NOON)
Second
IIIrd
200
2 Hours (01:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M.)
The petitioner applied for the said post in the Department of English and secured the following marks:
Marks Card (JPSC-JET Examination)
Roll No.
010200012
Marks obtained in 1st Paper
60
Marks obtained in 2nd Paper
58
Marks obtained in 3rd Paper
104
Average Marks Scored
56
In the advertisement the minimum qualifying marks are indicated in the chart below:
CATEGORY
Minimum Qualifying Marks
PAPER I
PAPER II
PAPER I + PAPER II
GENERAL/OBC
40
40
100 (50%)
PH/VH
35
33
90 (45%)
SC/ST
35
35
80 (40%)
3. It will be evident that the minimum qualifying marks was no doubt as per the advertisement 50% and even on a bare reading of affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 4, it is clear that subsequently moderation committee met and changed the criteria without any prior notice. The entire exercise was to short list the eligible candidates for the purpose of selection by way of interview and the petitioner undoubtedly becomes debarred from being considered in view of the enhancement of minimum qualifying marks done subsequently without any notice.
4. Strangely the petitioner was declared unsuccessful on the ground that he had not scored the minimum qualifying marks (cut off marks) which according to the respondent is 60% whereas the average marks scored by the petitioner was admittedly 56%. This gave a cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the same.
5. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the criteria have been specifically changed by altering the minimum qualifying marks subsequent to the advertisement without any prior notice. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that he was even otherwise eligible since he had scored much more than 50% which was the minimum qualifying marks as advertised and thus, the result declared beyond the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 19.07.2006, was on the face of it arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside.
6. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the decision was taken after conducting the examination and after evaluation of papers pursuant to a meeting of moderation committee which comprised of two representatives of the U.G.C., Joint Secretary Dr. N.B. Krishnaswamy and Dr. (Smt.) v. Muniamna, Ex-Vice Chancellor, Gulbarga University. It is stated that the result of JET was published by the commission on the basis of norms fixed by the U.G.C. and also in the light of the direction, instructions and guidelines issued by U.G.C. and thus, there was nothing illegal.
7. The counsel for the respondent has referred to and relied upon an order passed by this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 876/2007 on 23.7.2007. However, on a bare perusal of same, it appears that the learned Single Judge, directed the U.G.C. to take a decision and communicate it to J.P.S.C. with regard to cut off marks and thus, this order has no application to the issue involved in this case.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the criteria with regard to minimum qualification marks has been unilaterally changed after the completion of selection process of which the petitioner had no knowledge nor was it communicated. There is no dispute that as per the advertisement and the cut off marks indicated therein the petitioner had secured 56% in the average marks secured in the three papers whereas the requirement was only to secure 50% and thus the result declared was beyond the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 19.7.2006. The respondents are also creature of statute and they cannot change the very terms and condition as laid down in the advertisement without assigning any reason and without even communicating the same and that also after the completion of the selection process. It will be relevant to quote para-16 of the counter-affidavit.
16. That, it is stated that after conducting the examination and after evaluation of papers, the meeting of moderation committee was held, in which, two representatives of U.G.C., Joint Secretary, Dr. N.B. Krishnaswamy and Dr. (Smt. ) v. Muniamna, Ex-Vice Chancellor, Gulbarga University were present.
That, in the said meeting the minimum qualifying marks for each subject and the mode of publication of result of JET examination was decided.
9. Thus it is an admitted fact that the minimum qualifying marks for each subject was changed after conducting the examination and after evaluation of papers and no reason has been assigned as to why it has been done. In a recent judgment K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. as reported in : AIR2008SC1470 , while considering a similar issue, a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para-27 held as under:
But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum marks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier Resolutions dated 24-7-2001 and 21.12002 and held that what was adopted on 30-11-2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them- P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa.
10. In the instant case minimum marks which a candidate was required to obtain in the written papers in the aggregate was 50% in order to qualify and become eligible and to be included in the panel. The subsequent prescription of 60% in the aggregate, after the entire process is completed, will certainly amount to amendment of the terms and conditions of the eligibility criteria as advertised. Neither any reason has been assigned nor any averment has been made in the counter affidavit as to under what circumstances the change in the criteria was introduced.
11. It has time and again been held that the criteria as advertised for eligibility cannot be changed after selection process is over and the same is on the face of it illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that the petitioner appeared for the aforesaid test and obtained/secured marks much more than the minimum qualifying marks as advertised but still was declared unsuccessful in view of the enhancement and change in the terms and conditions as per advertisement.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and declare him as successful candidate for the test conducted by the J.P.S.C. and JET for Lectureship 2006 in accordance with the prescribed minimum qualification marks as advertised on 19.7.2006.