IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1157 of 1992 1. DR.DHARMENDRA KISHORE SINGH, son of late Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, resident of Sumitra Sadan, East Boring Canal Road, Patna -1 2. Sangeeta Sinha 3. Samsul Arif Javed 4. Nirupama Kumari 5. Pradeep Kumar Agrawal 6. Brajesh Kumar 7. Pradeep Kumar Sharma 8. Sanjay Prasad 9. Rashmi Ojha ….Petitioners Versus 1. The Bihar State University Service Commission, North Shrikrishnapuri, Boring Road, Patna -1, through its Secretary 2. The Patna University 3. The Vice Chancellor, Patna University 4. Shri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, Chairman, Bihar State University Service Commission 5. Manju Shukla 6. Mrs. Meenakshi 7. Sri Birendra Prasad 8. Abha Singh 9. Sri Satis Narain Lal 10. Manjula Kumari 11. Sri Rakesh Ranjan 12. Resmi 13. Sri Saffruddin 14. Preeti Kumari 15. Naheed Ahmad 16. Dr. (Mrs.)Chandra Prabha 17. Reena Moharka 18. Dr. Shardendu ….. Respondents ----------- 14- 26.10.2009 None appears on behalf of the petitioners. Heard Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi for respondent nos. 6, 9, 13, and 14, Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha for respondent no.15, and Mr. Sharad Kumar Sinha for respondent nos. 16 and 18. 2. This writ petition seeks to challenge the selection and appointment of respondent nos. 5 to 18 as Lecturers in Botany in the Patna University. It appears that respondent no.1 had issued - 2 - advertisement nos.74 to 120/USC/90, inviting applications, inter alia, for the posts of Lecturer in Botany. Photocopy of the advertisement is marked Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioners as well as respondent nos. 5 to 18, apart from other candidates, participated in the selection process which comprised of two parts. The first part carried 65 marks would be sub-divided in two parts. 55 marks were allotted to evaluation of the academic performance of the candidate from Matriculation till M.Sc. on a very objective basis. 10 marks were allotted for higher qualifications like Ph.D., etc. The second part comprised of viva-voce test which carried 35 marks. It was further decided that no candidate having scored less than 75 marks shall be recommended for appointment. On completion of the selection process, the merit list was prepared in which none of the petitioners figured because they had scored much less than 75 marks. Respondent nos. 5 to 18 had scored more than 75 marks and were recommended for appointment and ultimately appointed by the University. It is thus manifest that 65 marks were to be allotted on purely objective basis in which no discretion at all was involved. The balance 35 marks was available for viva-voce test which is integral part of such selection process. This court has no mechanism to judge whether or not the candidates were allotted appropriate marks at the viva-voce test. Furthermore, the viva-voce Board comprised of three members, two of whom were from different Universities and one of them was a local member nominated by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, known as Internal Expert. It was noticed by the Chairman of the Commission - 3 - (respondent no.4), that one of his close relatives was an applicant and he, therefore, immediately disassociated from the selection process with due information to the Chancellor of the Universities. It thus appears to us that the petitioners were not recommended because of their poor performance. No grievance has been raised that any person lower down in the merit list than the petitioners were appointed. No case of discrimination has been set up. Furthermore, respondent nos. 5 to 18 joined way back in 1992, and seventeen years have lapsed since then. We do not find any ground for interference with the appointments of respondent nos. 5 to 18. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma ) mrl