http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5274 of 2007

PETITIONER: B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi

RESPONDENT: Union of India and others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/11/2007

BENCH: A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.     5274              OF 2007 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 16909/2006]

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

1.      Leave granted.

        2.      This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated  19.9.2006 of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 9521 and  18563 of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 21870 of 2001.

3.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.      The appellant (respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition) applied for the  post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department,  Government of Pondicherry.  That post was to be filled up by direct  recruitment in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Union Public  Service Commission (hereinafter in short ’UPSC’) dated 23.5.1998 inviting  applications from eligible candidates.

5.      The appellant states that he was fully qualified for the post, but he was  not called for the interview although similarly placed candidates had been so  called.

6.      In this connection it may be mentioned that in the advertisement for  the post issued by the UPSC, essential qualifications mentioned therein were  as follows :

               "Essential :                  A.: Educational : M.Sc. Degree in Agriculature from a  recognized University or institution.

B:  Experience :  Two years experience in extension  work/soil/Input Analysis."

There was no mention in the advertisement that the experience of two years  must be after obtaining the M.Sc. degree.  7.      It appears that the UPSC resorted to short listing and did not call the  appellant for the interview because he did not have two years experience in  extension work/soil/Input Analysis after obtaining the M.Sc. degree in  agriculture.  He no doubt had the requisite experience, but that was obtained

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

before he got his M.Sc. degree.  The UPSC called only those candidates for  interview who had got the experience after getting the degree.    

8.      The appellant was of the view that there was no requirement that the  two years experience should be after obtaining the Masters degree in  agriculture.  The appellant undoubtedly had such experience before  obtaining his M.Sc. degree in agriculture.

9.      Since the appellant was not called for the interview he filed OA. No.  1045/97 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.  By an interim  order the Tribunal allowed the appellant to appear in the interview.  Subsequently the Tribunal in its final order dated 23.6.2000 observed that  since the appellant had been interviewed in pursuance of the interim order of  the Tribunal, no further direction is required to be given in this connection  and the result of the interview should be published.  Accordingly the result  was published and since the appellant was found first in the merit list, he  was appointed as Deputy Director (Agriculture) on 23.3.2001, and has been  working as such since then.   

10.     Aggrieved, writ petition was filed by the respondents herein before  the Madras High Court which allowed the writ petition and quashed the  appointment of the appellant.  Hence this appeal by way of Special Leave  Petition.

11.     One of the reason given by the High Court for setting aside the  appellant’s appointment was that the Tribunal should have gone into the  question of eligibility of the appellant herein.   Instead of doing so, it  disposed off the O.A. filed before it by directing the UPSC to publish the  result.  Accordingly, the appellant herein was appointed by the Government  of Pondicherry vide order dated 23.3.2001 on the post of Deputy Director  (Agriculture).

12.     We need not go into the question whether the Tribunal should have  decided the case on merits since we are deciding it on merits.  

13.     The High Court in the impugned judgment has also observed that it  was open for the UPSC to restrict the number of candidates to be called for  the interview by adopting a short-listing method.  The High Court was of the  view that there was no irrationality or illegality in the method of short-listing  adopted by the UPSC.  With respect, we cannot agree.  

14.     In paragraph 3.1 of the advertisement of UPSC dated 23.5.1998, it is  stated :

"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 either  qualifications and experience higher than the minimum  prescribed in the advertisement or on the basis of the  experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the  advertisement or on the basis of experience in the  relevant field, or by holding a screening test.  The  candidate should, therefore, mention all the qualifications  and experience in the relevant field over and above the  minimum qualifications and should attach attested/self  certified copies of the certificates in support thereof."     

15.     It is well settled that the method of short-listing can be validly adopted  by the Selection Body vide Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission  vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another \026 1994(6) SCC 293 (vide paras 6,  8, 9 and 13),  Government of Andhra Pradesh  vs. P. Dilip Kumar and  another \026 1993(2) SCC 310, etc.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

16.     Even if there is no rule providing for short-listing nor any mention of  it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the Selection  Body can resort to a short-listing procedure if there are a large number of  eligible candidates who apply and it is not possible for the authority to  interview all of them.  For example, if for one or two posts there are more  than 1000 applications received from eligible candidates, it may not be  possible to interview all of them.  In this situation, the procedure of short- listing can be resorted to by the Selection Body, even though there is no  mention of short-listing in the rules or in the advertisement.

17.     However, for valid short-listing there have to be two requirements \026  (i) It has to be on some rational and objective basis.  For instance, if  selection has to be done on some post for which the minimum essential  requirement is a B.Sc. degree, and if there are a large number of eligible  applicants, the Selection Body can resort to short-listing by prescribing  certain minimum marks in B.Sc. and only those who have got such marks  may be called for the interview.  This can be done even if the rule or  advertisement does not mention only those who have the aforementioned  minimum marks, will be considered or appointed on the post.  Thus the  procedure of short-listing is only a practical via-media which has been  followed by the courts in various decisions since otherwise there may be  great difficulties for the selecting and appointing authorities as they may not  be able to interview hundreds and thousands of eligible candidates;   (ii) If a   prescribed method of short-listing has been mentioned in the rule or  advertisement then that method alone has to be followed.

18.     In the present case, no doubt, the UPSC had resorted to an objective  and rational criteria that only those who have two years experience after  getting the M.Sc. degree will be considered, while those who have got such  experience but only before getting the M.Sc. degree will not be called for the  interview.  Ordinarily we would not have taken exception to this procedure  since it is based on an objective criteria, and ordinarily this Court does not  interfere with administrative decisions vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of  India  AIR 1996 SC 11.  As observed in the said decision, the modern  approach is for courts to observe restraint in administrative matters.  

19.     Hence, if the method of short-listing had not been prescribed by the  UPSC or in a statutory rule, it is possible that the argument of learned  counsel for the respondents may have been accepted and we may not have  interfered with the method of short-listing adopted by the UPSC since it  appears to be based on a rational and objective criteria.  

20.     However, in this case we have noticed that in paragraph 3.1 of the  advertisement of the UPSC dated 23.5.1998, the method of short-listing has  been given.  Hence the UPSC cannot resort to any other method of short- listing other than that which has been prescribed in paragraph 3.1.  In the  said paragraph of the advertisement, it is mentioned that the Commission  may restrict the number of candidates on the basis of either qualifications  and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or  on the basis of the experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the  advertisement or on the basis of experience in the relevant field.  In other  words, it was open to the UPSC to do short-listing by stating that it will call  only those who have Ph.D. degree in Agriculture  (although the essential  degree was only M.Sc. degree in Agriculture). Similarly, the UPSC could  have said that it would only call for interview those candidates who have,  say, five years experience, although the essential requirement was only two  years experience.  However, experience after getting the M.Sc. degree  cannot be said to be higher than the experience before getting the M.Sc  degree.  Also, the advertisement dated 23.5.1998 does not mention that two  years experience must be after getting the M.Sc. degree.

21.     Learned counsel for the appellant has shown us several  advertisements issued by the Union Public Service Commission in which it  was specifically mentioned that experience must be after getting the post-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

graduate degree. However, in the present case, the advertisement does not  mention that the two years experience must be after getting the M.Sc. degree  in Agriculture.   Hence, we cannot add words to the advertisement and we  must read it as it is.

22.     As observed by this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The  International Airport Authority of India and others \026 AIR 1979 SC 1628  (vide para 10):

" It is a well-settled rule of administrative law that an  executive authority must be rigorously held to the  standards by which it professes its actions to be judged  and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain  of invalidation of an act in violation of them.  This rule  was enunciated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Vitarelli vs.  Seaton (1959) 359 US 535; 3 L Ed  2nd 1012 where the learned Judge said:

"An executive agency must be rigorously  held to the standards by which it professes  its actions to be judged\005\005.Accordingly, if  dismissal from employment is based on a  defined procedure, even though generous  beyond the requirements that binds such  agency, that procedure must be scrupulously  observed\005\005  This judicially evolved rule  of administrative law is now firmly  established and, if I may add, rightly so.  He  that takes the procedural sword shall perish  with the sword".  

This Court accepted the rule as valid and applicable in  India in A.S. Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab (1975) 3 SCR 82:  (AIR 1975 SC 984) and in subsequent decisions given in  Sukhdev vs. Bhagatram (1975) 3 SCR 619; (AIR 1975 SC  1331), Mathew, J. quoted the above-referred observations of  Mr. Justice Frankfurter with approval.  It may be noted that this  rule, though supportable also as emanating from Article 14 does  not rest merely on that Article.  It has an independent existence  apart from Article 14.  It is a rule of administrative law which  has been judicially evolved as a check against exercise of  arbitrary power by the executive authority.  If we turn to the  judgment of Mr. Justice Frankfurter and examine it, we find  that he has not sought to draw support for the rule from the  equality clause of the United States Constitution but evolved it  purely as a result of administrative law.  Even in England, the  recent trend in administrative law is in that direction as is  evident from  what is stated at pages 540-541 in Prof. Wade’s  Administrative Law 4th Edn. There is no reason why we should  hesitate to adopt   this rule as a part of our continually  expanding administrative law."  

23.     Had paragraph 3.1 not been in the advertisement of the UPSC it is  possible that we may have taken a view in favour of the respondents since in  that case it was open to the UPSC to resort to any rational method of short- listing of its choosing (provided it was fair and objective).  However, in the  present case, a particular manner of short-listing has been prescribed in  paragraph 3.1.  Hence, it is not open to the UPSC to resort to any other  method of short-listing even if such other method can be said to be fair and  objective.

24.     For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed.  The impugned  judgment of the High Court is set aside.   The appellant has been working as  Deputy Director (Agriculture) since 2001 in pursuance of the judgment of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

the Tribunal and the interim order of this Court, and we uphold his  appointment.  No costs.