Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
T. SUNDARARAMAN & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/04/1997
BENCH:
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The Union Public Service Commission (for short ’the
Commission’) issued and advertisement dated 10.10.1987
inviting applications for three posts of Assistant
Professors of Medicine. The essential qualifications for the
post were set out in the application . One of the
qualifications was: at least three years’ teaching
experience in the concerned speciality as a
lecturer/Tutor/Demonstrator/Senior Resident/Registrar after
obtaining the requisite post-graduate degree qualification.
Note 21 to the advertisement states that the prescribed
essential qualifications were the minimum qualifications and
a were possession of minimum qualification does not entitle
the candidates to be called for interview. where the number
of applications received in response to an advertisement is
large and it will not be convenient or possible for the
commission to interview all the candidates, the commission
may restrict the number of candidates to a reasonable limit
on the basis of qualifications and experience higher than
the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or by holding a
screening test.
In the present case 37 applications were received for
the three posts. The Commission thereupon shortlisted the
candidates to be called for interview on the basis of 4
years’ experience or more. As a result, 20 candidates were
called for interview. Respondent No.1 did not qualify for
shortlisting and hence he was not called for interview.
He along with one Dr. V.S. Gopalakrishnan filed an
application before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras bench(hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’ ) for
setting aside the selection to the post of Assistant
Professor of Medicine Pursuant to the said advertisement by
challenging shortlisting. The Tribunal held that the
Commission had not filed a separate reply. Taking note of an
averment made by the applicants before the Tribunal that a
large number of vacancies were available, it remitted the
case to the Commission for re-processing all applications
including those of the applicants for fresh selection,
disapproving of the shortlisting done by the commission.
The Tribunal has clearly erred in doing so. Note 21 to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the advertisement expressly provides that if a large number
of applications are received the commission may shortlist
candidates for interview on the basis of higher
qualifications although all applicants may possess the
requisite minimum qualifications. In the case of M.P. Public
Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Anr. JT (1994)
6 SC 302 this court has upheld shortlisting of candidates
on some rational and reasonable basis. In that case, for the
purpose of shortlisting, a longer period of experience than
the minimum prescribed was used as a criterion by the public
service Commission for calling candidates for an interview.
This was upheld by this Court. In the case of Govt. of A.P.
vs. P. Dilip Kumar & Anr. JT (1993) 2 SC 138 also this court
said that it is always open to the recruiting agency to
screen candidates due for consideration at the threshold of
the process of selection by prescribing higher eligibility
qualification so that the field of selection can be narrowed
down with the ultimate objective of promoting candidates
with higher qualifications to enter the zone of
consideration. The procedure, therefore, adopted in the
present case by the commission was legitimate. The decision
of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is
allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.