Dismissed

Anup Kumar Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC12 Jan 2022WPC/24/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for the petitioner to be called for an interview as an Assistant Professor (Backlog). The Court found that even with the maximum claimed marks, the petitioner scored below the cutoff for the last candidate called for interview under the relevant category.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not meet the merit requirements.

Anup Kumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 24 of 2022

¶3

Anup Kumar Mehta ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi

¶6

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, Ranchi

¶7

The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi

¶8

The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi

¶9

The University Grants Commission, New Delhi ….. Respondents ----- CORAM

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

----For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the JPSC: Mr. Sanjay Piprawall For the UGC: Mr. Laxman Kumar

¶12

02/12.01.2022 The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for calling in interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Backlog) for the subject of History under Backward Class-II category in different Universities situated within the State of Jharkhand pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2018 issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to paragraph 21 of the writ petition, submits that the petitioner deserved to be awarded 53.25 marks out of 85 marks and should have been declared qualified to be called for interview as according to his information, the candidates securing lesser marks than him in B.C-II category, have been called for interview. According to the petitioner, he has been awarded only 51.25 marks out of 85 marks as he has been given 03 marks for ‘Publication’ instead of 05 marks for the same. It is thus submitted that if the petitioner is awarded 05 marks for ‘Publication’, he will qualify to be called for interview.

¶15

Mr. Sanjay Piiprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC, on instruction, submits that after re-assessment, the petitioner has provisionally been found to have secured 52.75 marks including 4.50 marks re-given for ‘Publication’ whereas the last candidate called for interview under B.C-II

¶16

category has been allotted 54.15 marks as per Clause 6(iv) of the said advertisement. Even if the petitioner’s claim that he should have been awarded 53.25 marks, is considered, the same would be less than 54.15 marks secured by the last candidate called for interview under BC-II category.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case so as to seek any relief under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶18

The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶20

Satish/-

Anup Kumar Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anup Kumar Mehta v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyam Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Deoghar

Satyam Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Deoghar

Deo Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Deptt

Punam Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Ram Lakhan Singh Vs the Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

Ravi Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand