The balance between the interests of fresh entrants and experienced candidates in the selection process is crucial in determining the validity of selection criteria.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Sanjay Pandey for the Bihar Public Service Commission. The State has been represented by Mr. Alok Ranjan.

2. The appellants students, for being appointed as Assistant Professors in the Engineering Colleges, have challenged the judgment dated 11.05.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7963 of 2021 whereby the procedure adopted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) in shortlisting candidates for interview only on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination, testing the domain knowledge of the applicants, has been affirmed and upheld.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the scheme of examination as disclosed in the advertisement, 40% weightage is to be given on evaluation of domain knowledge and teaching skill through written examination in objective form. Weightage of 20 marks is to be given for academic record and research performance. The interview is to have a weightage of 15 marks. For the experience acquired through engagement on contract basis, a weightage of 25 marks has been prescribed.

4. The appellants never challenged the aforenoted scheme. No questions have been raised also on one of the conditions stipulated in the Advertisement that for the weightage 40% marks while evaluating the domain knowledge and teaching skill through objective written examination, there would be a minimum qualifying marks also.

5. All that the appellants and others of the same ilk were aggrieved was with respect to a condition/stipulation in Note-4 to the Advertisement, which declared that for interview, a candidate shall be shortlisted only on the basis of marks obtained by him in the domain knowledge and teaching skill through written competitive examination.

6. Mr. Kaushik, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that there is a statutory provision for giving weightage of marks for the services rendered on contract basis. It was the conscious decision of the State Government with a definite purpose to be achieved. This purpose would be rendered meaningless if Note-4 to the Advertisement i.e. shortlisting persons for interview only on the basis of academic/domain knowledge is allowed to be retained in the Advertisement. It heavily discounts the weightage on the past experience which, more often than not, is more important than mere technical domain knowledge.

7. He further submits that by prescribing a qualifying marks in the written examination, the domain knowledge of a candidate already stands tested. In that case, such a condition as prescribed in Note-4 ought not to have been introduced.

8. Lastly it has been submitted that the interpretation of the learned Single Judge, applying the principle of giving equal platform to new entrants, without any contractual experience, affirmed the decision of the Commission to call such persons for interview, who would cross the cut-off marks fixed by the Commission, which would be based on the evaluation of the domain knowledge only may appear to be correct in the first blush but, on deeper analysis, would turn out to be specious.

9. Lastly it has been submitted that the learned Single Judge did not address himself to the issue that allowing Note No.4 to exist in the Advertisement amounted to a double filtration of the candidates which would adversely impact persons with experience.

10. Additionally it has been submitted that even though such prescription in the Advertisement may not breach any rule but, the overall objective of the State Government in granting weightage to past experience especially for jobs relating to teaching would be rendered completely otiose and meaningless and would not serve the common-weal.

11. As opposed to the aforenoted contentions, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the Commission, submits that the decision of the Commission to invite candidates for intervie