Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner participated in the recruitment test conducted by the Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand for appointment to the post of City Manager in various Districts and Department of the State. The brochure of the examination prescribe written objective type test of 450 marks in 3 different test papers. Based upon the written test, the merit list of short listed candidates to be called for interview was to be prepared. The final result were to be published after combining the result of the written test and marks obtained in interview. The component of interview also contained not only viva-voce test but also a competency test, which for convenience sake, respondents asked the applicants to undertake essay examination along with objective type written test. Respondents devised a methodology for preparation of merit list as per the qualifying marks obtained in terms of the resolution bearing memo No. 10326 dated 27.11.2012 of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha. Clause 6 of the said resolution enclosed to the counter affidavit shows that for General category candidates, qualifying marks was 40%.

2. The methodology of preparation of mark-sheet of shortlisted candidates after written examination and also before preparation of final merit list including the allocation of marks, category-wise and merit list has been produced in sealed cover pursuant to the previous order by the respondents. It shows that candidates facing objective type written test who secured the qualifying marks i.e., 40% in General category and lesser qualifying marks in other reserved categories got shortlisted. 116 candidates who got shortlisted in interview, their essay marks were also assessed by the evaluating body. The essay marks were not combined for preparation of list of shortlisted candidates to be called for interview. The essay marks obtained for the purpose of competency test have only been added after the result of viva-voce test amongst 116 candidates for preparation of final merit list for appointment. Out of 116 candidates called for interview, 78 candidates have finally been included in the merit list depending upon the respective category. Petitioner, admittedly got 128 marks in the General category and 180 marks was qualifying being 40% of 450 marks in the objective test. That is why his essay marks were not evaluated by the examining body which submitted the category-wise result of different candidates taking the written examination to the Department for the purpose of taking interview of the shortlisted candidates.

3. In the aforesaid state of undisputed facts, ground urged by the petitioner is that the brochure for the recruitment test do not prescribe qualifying marks. Therefore, the rule of game has been changed in the mid-course. It is also submitted that the new device of taking the essay examination was introduced along with objective type written test by the respondents, which again has changed the pattern of the examination as professed through the brochure. It is submitted that these changes have prejudiced the petitioner and has also resulted in his exclusion from the merit list.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Department submitted that the respondents have acted in due compliance of the procedure laid down for the examination and no derogation thereof has been made. The result of objective type written test has only been made the basis for calling the shortlisted candidates for interview. The qualifying marks have been prescribed by the resolution of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, which has been uniformly applied to all candidates irrespective of categories including the petitioner. Qualifying marks have also been laid down to ensure that the level of the competition is not reduced to such an extent that less meritorious candidates come in fray. Since the procedure has been adopted in fair manner and not adopted after conduct of the examination but by virtue of the resolution already operating in the field by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha in the matter of any such selection test, it cannot be said that the rule of game has changed. Therefore, petitioner cannot allege that because of laying down of qualifying marks, he has been unfairly discriminated. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that in totality the recruitment exercise cannot be said to be suffering from arbitrariness, violation of laid down pattern of examination or unfairness in treating one or the other candidates, which could be a ground to vitiate the exercise of recruitment.

5. I have considered the submission made by rival parties, relevant materials on record including the category-wise marks and methodology in preparation of shortlisted candidates, as produced in sealed cover by the respondents. The process of recruitment followed by the respondents shows that while on the one hand the list of shortlisted candidates to be called for interview was prepared on the basis of objective type written test only as per the qualifying marks prescribed under the resolution bearing memo No. 10326 dated 27.11.2012 of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand but for convenience sake the component of interview i.e. the competency test was taken along with the objective type written test by way of essay test. This procedure cannot be said to have prejudiced the case of any of the applicants including the petitioner as it uniformly applied to all of them. The essay test has not been counted for preparation of list of shortlisted candidates to be called for interview. After the shortlisted candidates faced interview i.e. viva-voce test by panel prepared by the Department, the essay marks have been added to the total marks obtained in the written test to prepare the final merit list. This process has been followed uniformly and cannot be said to have caused unfairness to any participating candidates. The examining body does have the flexibility in joints to devise a procedure which, applies uniformly to all and is not arbitrary. Thus, it cannot be said that the said recruitment exercise has been vitiated on any ground for judicial review. Petitioner has got 128 marks, which is less than the qualifying marks i.e. 180 in the written objective test. That is why he could not be called for interview.

6. If that be so, petitioner cannot seek quashing of the recruitment exercise by asking for setting aside the result published on 13.9.2015. In that view of the matter, no grounds for interference is made in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.