JUDGMENT :

1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

I.A. No.2141 of 2019

2 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 193 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Heard.

4. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No.2141 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 193 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No.96 of 2019

6. This instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 22.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2385 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed, declining to interfere with the order as contained in letter no. 5/Ni 1-02/07/198 dated 05.06.2008 issued by the Director (Higher Education) Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

7. The brief fact of the case, which requires to be referred herein, reads hereunder as:

The writ petitioner is M.Com 1st Class and has qualified the Jharkhand State Eligibility Test for Lecturership held on 12.11.2006 in the subject of Commerce conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘J.P.S.C.’).

One advertisement was published being Advertisement No.01/2007 dated 30.01.2007 by the J.P.S.C., inviting applications for appointment of Lecturers in the various colleges of the different universities of the State of Jharkhand. The said advertisement was published for filling up of 1045 numbers of vacancies in the various colleges. The writ petitioner being eligible in all respects made his application for appointment to the post of ‘Lecturer’ in Commerce Department. The J.P.S.C has called upon the writ petitioner to appear in the interview, in which the writ petitioner participated, but he was not found fit to be recommended in the list of the successful candidates for such appointment. The writ petitioner obtained information under Right to Information Act and came to know about the cut off marks in the Commerce subject as also about his marks. The writ petitioner was informed that he has obtained 54 marks in the academic eligibility and 25 marks in the interview and the cut off marks for the General Category in Commerce subject is 80. Since the writ petitioner has obtained 79 marks which is less than the cut off marks of 80 and as such, he has not been recommended for such selection.

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that still several vacancies have been left out which ought to have been filled up and if decision would have been taken, the writ petitioner, who is short of only one marks from the list of selected candidates, ought to have been recommended for such appointment.

The State-respondent appeared and filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating therein that against the recommendation process of the J.P.S.C., Ranchi, large number of malpractices has been conducted in making recommendation of the teachers and the State Government was also reported about such irregularities, hence the matter was referred for enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation which is going on. Further, it has been contended therein that the process of recommendation has stood completed and as such, it is not proper for the Commission to initiate fresh process for recommendation of the candidate for appointment. Further it has been stated that as per the provision under Section 57(2) (b) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 (Adapted), the merit list prepared by the Commission remains valid only for a period of one year from the date of its approval, hence as per the aforesaid provision of law, the merit list is not valid afte