Mere participation in recruitment does not confer an indefeasible right to be appointed unless the action of the State is found to be arbitrary and contrary to the rules.

Pramath Patnaik, J.

Challenging the selection process with respect to the posts advertized vide Advertisement (Annexure-1) and the results of the written test vide Annexure-4 and the notice dated 06.06.2007 by the J.P.S.C., whereby the vacancies in Mechanical Engineering have been reduced from 25 to 22 vide Annexure-3 to the writ application, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for direction to the respondents to start the fresh selection process.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ application are that the petitioner applied for the post of the Mechanical Engineer in pursuance to the Advertisement published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for different posts vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination. On 06.06.2007, J.P.S.C. published a notice in the newspaper revising the vacancy in different subjects and the vacancies in Mechanical Engineering were reduced from 25 to 22 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The name of the petitioner did not find place in the result of the preliminary examination. Thereafter, the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act and the information was supplied to the petitioner by the J.P.S.C.'s Public Information Officer vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner being aggrieved by the reply, preferred a complaint before the Information Commissioner vide letter dated 15.01.2008. The Chief Information Commissioner allowed three weeks' time to the J.P.S.C. Consequent to the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 07.02.2008 dismissing W.P. (S) No. 446 of 2008 filed by the J.P.S.C. The copies of the order dated 03.03.2008 and the details provided by the J.P.S.C. regarding the marks obtained by all the candidates have been enclosed as Annexure-9 and 10 to the writ petition and the copy of the Disclosure made in the Website regarding correct answers has been given in Annexure-11 to the writ petition. It has been averred in the writ application that from the complete disclosure of the marks determined by each candidates, the petitioner conceived the tabular analysis and from the Tabular Analysis, it appears that while the petitioner, an OBC candidate, with 56 marks has not qualified, the candidates in general category with lesser marks (in 8 candidates with 54 marks and 6 candidates with 52 marks have been shown as successful besides 4 candidates with equal marks (56) as that of the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have been treated as equivalent with candidates, who secured 56 marks in general category, which has resulted in hostile discrimination, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has further been submitted that the criteria and Rules cannot be altered to the prejudice of the candidates, after they have applied pursuant to the Advertisement, therefore, it has been contended that the final results has got tainted with illegality. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the doors of this Court, under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner as successful candidates in spite of the facts that the persons securing less marks have been selected and the action of the respondents smacks of colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel further submits that the entire selection process has got vitiated due to mala fide, illegal and unconstitutional action of the respondents in changing the criteria and Rules for selection. Learned counsel further submits that the selection process has been rendered illegal in view of the reduction of the vacancies made by the respondents for the posts of Mechanical Engineering