Screening committees may adopt additional shortlisting criteria without altering advertised essential qualifications.

The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research issued Advertisement No. 3/2017 dated 3 August 2017 for one unreserved post of Scientist (CPS-4).

The prescribed essential qualification was an M.E./M.Tech. in specified technical disciplines or a submitted Ph.D. in Science/Engineering, along with the prescribed experience.

The applicant possessed the advertised qualification and applied for the post but was not shortlisted for interview.

The Screening Committee screened 173 candidates who met the minimum qualification and adopted additional shortlisting criteria, including specified academic performance, Ph.D. status, experience, and publication of at least two papers in journals or conferences having an H5 index of 10 or above.

The applicant challenged his non-shortlisting, contending that the additional publication requirement impermissibly altered the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement.

The respondents relied on the advertisement clause stating that possession of the minimum qualification did not confer an entitlement to an interview and that the Screening Committee could adopt its own shortlisting criteria.

Whether the Screening Committee impermissibly changed the essential educational qualification by requiring candidates to satisfy additional publication and academic criteria for shortlisting.

Whether the respondents were entitled to adopt additional criteria to shortlist candidates for interview when 173 candidates possessed the minimum advertised qualification for one post.

The Tribunal applied the principle that prescribed educational qualifications and experience constitute only the minimum eligibility requirements and that mere possession of those requirements does not create an automatic right to be called for interview.

It further applied the principle that, where the number of eligible candidates exceeds the number of available posts, a duly constituted selection or screening committee may adopt reasonable additional criteria to determine comparative suitability and fix a shortlisting threshold, provided that the essential qualification itself is not altered.

The Tribunal also relied on the express condition in Advertisement No. 3/2017 authorising the Screening Committee to adopt its own criteria for shortlisting candidates.

The Tribunal distinguished between eligibility and shortlisting.

The applicant, along with 172 other candidates, was first recognised as possessing the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement.

The additional requirements concerning marks or CGPA, Ph.D. status, experience, and publication record were then applied only to determine comparative suitability among eligible candidates, not to redefine the minimum qualification.

Since there was only one advertised post and 173 candidates met the minimum requirements, the Screening Committee was entitled to adopt further criteria for limiting the number of candidates called for interview.

The advertisement expressly warned candidates that minimum qualifications did not entitle them to an interview and authorised the Screening Committee to formulate its own shortlisting criteria.

Accordingly, the publication requirement was treated as a shortlisting criterion rather than an alteration of the essential educational qualification.

The challenge to the applicant’s non-shortlisting was therefore rejected, and the Original Application was dismissed with no order as to costs.