Sanjeev Sharma vs State of J & K

The petitioner who holds a B. Pharmacy Degree from Bangalore University, has applied for the post of Drug Inspector in pursuance of the

Advertisement Notice No:3 dated 29041997 issued by the 2nd respondent. He is aggrieved of the Notification, in terms of which respondent

No:2 has short listed the candidates for interview which was to be held on 22.7.1998, because only such candidates, who were possessing sixty

five percent and above marks in B.Pharmacy, were invited for the interview.

The case of the petitioner is that since no such criteria was notified in the Advertisement notice, the respondent No:2 could not have shortlisted

the candidates after inviting applications.

Mr. Koul, appearing for the respondent, argued that shortlisting of candidates depends upon the number of vacancies for which recruitment is to

be made and the total number of applications. Rule 13(ii)of the J and K Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1992, according to him, enable

the Board to shortlist the candidates. This Board has exercised the discretion under this rule and, therefore, the shortlisting is neither without

jurisdiction nor arbitrary.

The question involved for consideration is, whether the shortlisting is arbitrary or irrational and, therefore, offends Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. Rule 13(ii) of the Recruitment rules reads as under:

(ii) Ordinarily, the Board shall restrict the number of applications to be admitted to oral or written test to a maximum of five times the number of

vacancies after doing the preliminary screening on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and such other criteria as the Board

may deem fit.

It thus enables the respondents to shortlist the candidates for interview in order to restrict the number with reference to the vacancies. There is no

challenge to the vires of this rule and rightly so because it is fair and reasonable to restrict the number, out of which selection is to be made. The

rule does not suffer from the vice of discrimination or arbitrariness, the only ground on which its validity could be questioned. So the shortlisting is

allowed by the Recruitment rules. However, even in the absence of the enabling provision, the shortlisting has been approved by the apex court in

a number of judgments, the latest being Union of India Vs. Sundra Raman, AIR SC/2418 holding that:

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 qualification although all applicants may possess the requisite minimum qualifications. In the case of M.P. Public

Service Commission V.Navnit Kumar Pordar, (1994)6 JT(SC) 302: (1994 AIR SCW 4088), this court has upheld shortlisting of candidates on

some rational and reasonable basis. In that case, for the purpose of short listing, 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, (1993)2 JT(SC)138: (1993 AIR SCW 848) also this court said that it is always upon 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.

Since shortlisting in this case has been resorted to under rule 13(ii) of the J and K Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992 (SRO 194 of

1992 dated IO.U8.1992) which has not been challenged, the petition is not maintainable.

In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.