Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—Since common question of fact and law has been raised in all these six writ applications, as such, all writ applications are heard together and are being disposed by a common order.

2. These writ applications have been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the notice, dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure P 9 to CWJC No. 10669 of 2024), by which the respondent-Bihar State University Service Commission has shortlisted the candidates for calling them for the purpose of interview on the basis of marks obtained by them under educational qualifications as per the parameters given in the Advertisement No. AP-MATH-23/20-21, dated 21.09.2020, for appointment as Assistant Professors in different Universities of Bihar in different subjects.

3. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction to the Bihar State University Service Commission (in short, ‘the Commission’) to allow them to appear in the interview, to be started from 22.07.2024 to 26.07.2024, and thereafter to publish the final merit list in their respective subjects on the basis of their performance in the educational qualification and interview.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, referring to Clause 7 of the Advertisement regarding selection process, particularly, Clause 7.2, submits that in the English version of the Advertisement, it is not mentioned that criteria for shortlisting of the candidates have been laid down for calling them for interview. They, however, submit that in the Hindi version of the Advertisement, at Clause 7.2, it has been mentioned that the criteria for shortlisting the candidates, as prescribed in Table-1, are for the purpose of interview. It is further submitted that as per Clause 7.1 of the Advertisement, the shortlisting of the candidates on the basis of criteria fixed under the Table given in Clause 7.2 of the Advertisement is not for calling the candidates for the purpose of interview.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that taking note of the selection criteria at Clause 7.2 of the Advertisement, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted interim relief in favour of the petitioners of CWJC Nos. 10073 and 10068 of 2024, directing the Commission to allow the petitioners to appear in the interview for the post of Assistant Professors in their respective subjects. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Park Leather Industry (P) Limited and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 135.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners lastly submits that the thrust of their argument is the interim order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, in CWJC Nos. 10073 and 10068 of 2024.

7. Learned Counsel for the Commission places reliance on the Statutes for appointment as Assistant Professor in the Universities of Bihar, 2020, and submits that as per Clause 3.6.2 of the Statutes, the procedure for interview shall be decided by the Commission. Clause 3.7 of the Statutes deals with scrutiny and shortlisting of candidate, which says that shortlisting of candidate shall be based on the points scored by them in academic qualification and academic achievements as enumerated in Table- 1. Clause 3.9 of the Statutes prescribes number of candidates to be called for interview and says that the number of candidates to be called for interview shall be decided by the Commission.

8. Upon conjoint reading of Clauses 3.6.2, 3.7 and 3.9 of the Statutes, it is manifest that scrutiny of applications forms and shortlisting of candidates is to be done solely for the purpose for calling the candidates for interview.

9. Further Clause 3.6.2 read with Clause 5.7 of the Statutes reflects that the power has been given to the Commission to call candidates for the interview on the basis of the procedure decided by it.

10. In terms of Clause 3.9 of the Statutes, the Commission, in its resolution, dated 19.06.2020, has decided to call three times the number of vacancies advertised in each category for the purpose of interv