JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for declaring that the summary score cards for Senior Scientists / Programme Coordinators for the purposes of short-listing of candidates to be called for interview for the post of Programme Co-ordinator (Senior Scientist & Head) KVKs pertaining to the advertisement dated 4.12.2017 are not in consonance with the Acts and Statutes of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar inasmuch as the criteria prescribed in the summary score cards for short listing of candidates to be called for interview is dehors the law. The writ petitioner has further prayed for declaring that the petitioner is not entitled for less than 63 marks under the summary score cards, hence, he is eligible to be called for interview.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent- University invited applications for six posts of Programme Coordinators (Senior Scientist & Head) of the KVKs vide advertisement dated 4.12.2017, pursuant whereof, the petitioner had applied in the prescribed format along with the prescribed fee, however, subsequently, the petitioner came to know in the last week of March, 2018 that interview call letters were being sent to the candidates, however, when the petitioner did not receive the interview call letter, he had inquired about the same and he came to know that he has not been selected for the purposes of being called for the interview. The petitioner had then pursued the matter with the authorities and on 7.4.2018, he received an email from the respondent-University wherein the marks awarded to the petitioner had been shown as 30.87 marks. From the perusal of the score card of the petitioner sent by the respondent University, it transpires that the petitioner has been awarded zero marks in the teaching / research / extension inspite of the fact that the petitioner has more than 17 years of experience in the extension education.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondents have illegally awarded zero marks under the heading service in remote areas / disadvantage areas (difficult areas) / KVKs, despite the fact that the petitioner has worked as subject matter specialist in the field of Nematology (Plant Protection) in KVKs under the same University for approximately 18 years i.e. with effect from 28.3.2001 as Training Associate, later on, re-nomenclatured as SMS by ICAR and he has continued on the said post till today, hence, the petitioner is entitled for six marks prescribed in the advertisement, since six marks were to be awarded to the candidates, who have completed at least three years of continuous service in specified areas / KVKs whereas the petitioner has worked for much more period.

4. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in column 5 of the advertisement, there is provision for teaching / research/ extension as major function and minor functions and the petitioner is a Subject Matter Specialist-cum-Scientist and has performed the work of technology application, demonstration and adoptions and extension approaches for technology dissemination, capacity development and collaborative programmes as well as refinement of technology, field day for Mass People Awareness as per the ICAR mandates. It is further submitted that the petitioner while working as SMS-cum-Scientist performed the works as required to be performed under Clause 5 of the advertisement, hence, he ought to have been given additional 16 marks against column no. 5A of the advertisement i.e. against the teaching as major function and additional eight marks against the column no. 5D i.e. pertaining to the teaching / research/ extension as minor function.

5. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is awarded six marks against column no. 3 of the advertisement i.e. pertaining to service in remote areas / disadvantage areas (Diffult Areas) / KVKs and 16 marks ag