IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20791 of 2010 1. PANKAJ KUMAR, S/O SRI RAJU RANJAN PRASAD, R/O B/94, VASHISHTHA COLONY, SAKET BIHAR, ANISHABAD, P.S.-PHULWARI, DISTRICT-PATNA. 2. RAJEEV RANJAN, S/O SRI KRISHNA MOHAN PRASAD, R/O POSTAL PART, P.S.-RAMLAKHAN PATH, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-CUM-EXAMINATION CONTROLLER, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 6. THE EXAMINATION CONTROLLER-CUM-ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 27.01.2011 Petitioners have filed this writ application for a direction to the respondent Commission to consider their candidature and allow them to participate in the interview for recommendation for appointment on the post of Principals in Industrial Training Institutes of the State. As per submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, since the number of applications were received by the Commission was 781 i.e. more than 500, the Commission was required to hold objective type screening test first and shortlist the candidates for calling for interview as per Clause-E of Rule 2 4 of Chapter 4 of Commission’s Rules. Therefore, before calling the candidates for interview the Commission should have held test which the Commission has not done. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this case. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the applications of the 781 applicants were scrutinized on the basis of educational qualifications, required experience and criteria fixed by the Department. Out of the 781 only 325 candidates were found eligible by the Commission. Since the 325 candidates were less than 500, as per submission of learned counsel for the Commission, no preliminary objective type screening test was required to be held. As the vacancies were 28 the Commission called the candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:5 on the basis of their respective marks secured by them in their engineering examination. The last candidate of general category thus called for interview had 70.58% marks in his engineering examination, whereas these two petitioners who are also of general category have 68.6% and 67% marks in engineering examination. 3 Therefore, they were beyond the ratio of 1:5 and so they were not called. This Court does not find that Commission has committed any error in not calling the petitioners for interview. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)