MIHIR KUMAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:-

"1(A) For issuance of writ of Mandamus directing Respondents to consider petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Department of ENT in the Medical College & Hospital situated within the State of Bihar under Department of Health in pursuance to the Advertisement no. 23 of 2011.”

(B) For a direction to the Respondents to provisionally allow petitioner to participate in the interview or in alternative to keep one post reserved till pendency of the present case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer, has submitted that the petitioner, despite fulfilling the requirement in the advertisement published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as the Commission), has been denied opportunity of being considered for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Ear, Nose & Throat (ENT) for the various government medical colleges and hospitals.

4. Mr. Kumar Alok, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard has basically concentrated on the aspect that the Commission has deprived the petitioner of the points that he ought to have been given for publication in journal.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the Commission, has explained that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement for grant of point/marks for publication in journal and as such, there is no flaw in the decision of the Commission in not calling the petitioner for interview, inasmuch as, he had secured only 8 marks for his academic qualification whereas the minimum cutoff was 10 marks for the candidates who had been called for interview.

6. In order to appreciate the submission of the parties, it would be necessary to take note of the relevant facts. The Commission on the basis of request sent by the Health Department had published an advertisement in the month of July, 2011 bearing Advertisement No. 23 of 2011 for appointment of the doctors on the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of ENT for medical colleges and hospitals. The petitioner also had filed his application for the post of Assistant Professor in response to the Advertisement no. 23 of 2011 and according to him, as per the instruction given in the advertisement, he was eligible for giving 20 points/marks for his educational qualification but, when he was not screened by the Commission on account of his being given only 8 point/marks, he had submitted his representation with all relevant papers including his articles published in the journals but, the Commission did not issue the interview call letter to the petitioner for the interview which was to be held on 9.7.2012 wherein only 7 candidates were called for interview against 8 posts.

7. The Commission in its counter affidavit has explained that it has followed the uniform criteria for filling up the post of Assistant Professor in all the different departments of the medical colleges and hospitals and since the petitioner had secured only 8 points in the evaluation made by the seven member experts team, he was not called for interview as the minimum cutoff fixed by the Commission was 10 point/marks. In this regard, it has been explained that the Expert Committee had awarded the petitioner 2 marks for discussion in MBBS and further 2 marks for securing more than 55% marks in the subject of his specialty and 4 marks for having M.D. ENT Degree.

8. In the counter affidavit filed by the Commission it has been specifically stated that though the petitioner had submitted his 7 publications in different medical journals but, the Committee of seven Experts had not given him any marks for those publications and, in this regard, the Commission had also informed the petitioner vide l