Chandra Shekhar Narayan Prasad Sharma vs M.P.S.R.T.C. and Another

The petitioner is aggrieved by an action of respondents refusing to call him for interview for the post of Depot Manager (Traffic) in spite of his having applied for appointment to the post and also being within the eligibility criteria.

The respondents advertised vacancies in the post of Depot Manager (Traffic) in the month of July 1986. The petitioner is one of the persons who applied for seeking appointment on one of the posts. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was eligible for the appointment. Call letter f6r interview was not issued to the petitioner.

The respondents in their return have offered explanation for failure to issue call letter to the petitioner. It is stated that there were 17 posts of which 10 were reserved for SC and ST people; only 7 were to be recruited out of general category candidates to which the petitioner also belonged. In order to bring uniformity in the matter of selection and also with an idea of maintaining standards and uprightness the respondents requested the Public Service Commission to make the recruitment. For 7 posts, there were 5504 applications. It was practically impossible to find out suitable candidates sheerly by the process of conducting interviews, in the opinion of the Commission and hence they adopted criteria for screening the applications and shortlisting the candidates. One of the tests laid down was to exclude all such general category candidates who had not secured 76% marks at the qualifying educational examination. By applying that test such candidates only were called for interview as had secured more than 76% marks. The petitioner was excluded as he had secured not even 60% marks.

It is well settled that every employer has a right to choose the post hands available to serve under it.

In S.B. Mathur and Others Vs. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Others, , their Lordships have held : -

"The minimum eligibility qualification has to be kept distinct from the zone of consideration and even if there are a large number of candidates who satisfy the minimum eligibility requirement it is not always required that they should be included in the zone of consideration, it being open to the authority concerned to restrict the zone of consideration amongst the eligible candidates in any reasonable manner."

In that case, the High Court having resolved while making selection to the post of Assistant Registrar that the zone of consideration or field of choice should be limited to the first five names out of the list prepared in the order of merit which included several others, their Lordships sustained the decision and further observed : -

"... there was nothing unreasonable in the restriction. It was open to Delhi High Court to restrict the zone of consideration in any reasonable manner and limiting the zone of consideration to a multiple of the number of vacancies and basing it on seniority according to the combined seniority list, could not be regarded as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide."

A Full Bench of this Court has held in Omprakash v. State of M. P., 1978 MPLJ 136 :-

"Once the Public Service Commission is asked by Government to make a selection it is entirely in the wisdom and discretion of the Commission what mode or method it would adopt subject to statutory provision if any. The Commission has unfettered right to evolve its own method of suitable candidates or modus operandi for selection of suitable candidates and for that purpose it may fix any criterion subject to eligibility being satisfied. The Commission cannot select candidates not possessing qualifications fixed by statute or Government. However, it can screen the applicants, classify them into various categories according to their plus qualification and/or experience and call for interview those who fall within the category. Such classification is not tantamount to hostile discrimination. Any person possessing qualification requisite for a eligibility has a right to apply for the post but there is no right to be called for interview merely because he is eligible for being appointed. If the Commission has made categories of persons either of plus qualifications or of those possessing experience no applicant can question his elimination at the threshold if he does not come within the category."

The petitioner has not alleged any mala fide or arbitrariness in the action of respondents. Adopting a reasonable criterion for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates enabling the employer to form a limited consideration zone out of a larger eligility zone cannot by itself be said to be arbitrary or violative of law". On behalf of the petitioner, nothing has been pointed out to hold that the action of the respondents violated any provision of law.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Navnit Kumar v. M.P.P.S.C 1989 MPLJ 620 : 1989 MPLSR 209 which is clearly distinguishable. There the criteria adopted by the Commission for shortlisting the candidates was in violation of the statutory rules and hence was held to be not permissible. Such is not the case here.

Equally misconceived is the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Vinay Ramlal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1983 (3) SLR 293. There an advertisement was issued laying down qualifications for admission to post-graduate course in general medicine in Government Medical College. The criteria for admission were altered by reference to certain executive instructions which were not referred to in the advertisement and which were also inconsistent therewith. Their Lordships held that the admission could have been made only by sticking to the basis of qualifications set out in the advertisement. Needless to say, that the petitioner herein cannot derive any assistance from the law laid down in that case.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for granting any relief to the petitioner. The petition is devoid of any merit. It is dismissed though without any order as to the costs. Outstanding security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner.