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.