Union of India & ANR Vs. T. Sundararaman
& Ors [1997] INSC 417 (9 April 1997)
SUJATA
V. MANOHAR, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
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 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2
