Nirmala Shukla and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

The Petitioners herein in these two writ petitions have challenged the order dated 26th April, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short, the tribunal) dismissing O.A. Nos. 437 and 438/2011. The challenge in the two O As was to the cut off marks fixed by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for short listing candidates for the post of Assistant Archeologist. The contention of the Petitioners is that they meet and fulfill the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and, therefore, they must be called for the interview. It is contended that the SSC could not have prescribed a short listing criteria and called candidates who had secured 70% or more marks for the interview.

There is no merit in the said contention. In the advertisement No. SSC/Mu/1/2009 published in Rozgar Samachar 22-28 August, 2009 under the heading ''Mode of Selection'' it was mentioned as under:

Candidates fulfilling the minimum prescribed qualifications will be sorted on the basis of their educational qualifications, academic records, percentage of marks etc. or through a screening test at the discretion of the commission. Candidates, thus, selected may be required to undergo a written proficiency test wherever applicable/required or considered necessary by the commission at its discretion.

(emphasis supplied)

It is clear from the said advertisement as rightly observed by the tribunal that SSC could resort to short listing. SSC had received 1750 applications against only 54 posts, which were advertised. After scrutiny of applications, 1366 applications were rejected on the ground of being overage, not meeting the essential qualification and the short listing criteria. Learned tribunal while dismissing O As had relied upon decision rendered in another O.A. No. 2864/2010 in which similar issue was raised but rejected in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, in which it has been held as under:

Method of shortlisting can be validly adopted by the selection body. 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.

In the said decision reference is also made to Amlan Jyoti Borooah Vs. State of Assam and Others, in which it has been held that power to shortlist and the criteria adopted should not be subjected to judicial review, if it is reasonable and not arbitrary.

The tribunal has also placed reliance on Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, in which it has been held by the Supreme Court that the purpose of shortlisting is to eliminate large number of candidates, who have applied.

The decision in O.A. No. 2864/2010 was made subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) 6289/2010 Ms. Khwairakpam Meneka v. Union of India and was dismissed by the order dated 20th September, 2010. The Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition has held that if the screening process does not suffer from the vice of irrationality or discrimination and could be resorted to, courts should not interfere. In the present case, it is also noticeable that keeping in view the total number of seats which are 54 (17 unreserved, 14 reserved for Scheduled Castes, 9 for Scheduled Tribes, 14 for Other Backward Classes and two vacancies were reserved for OH candidates), the Screening Committee had adopted methodology to reduce the number of applicants as 1750 applications had been received. The number of applications were disproportionate to the number of posts for which selection had to be made. The advertisement permits SSC to prescribe and fix a short listing criteria.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has admitted that the facts in the present case are similar to facts of W.P.(C) 6289/2010, but states that the ratio requires reconsideration. We are not inclined to accept the said submission. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs.