Umakant Kantilal Patel vs G.P.S.C.

Akil Kureshi, J.—In this group of petitions, since similar questions of law and facts arise, they have been heard together and are being

disposed of by this common order.

The petitioners in these petitions, challenge the action of the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC for short) in not calling them for oral

interview though they had cleared the written test.

It is the case of the petitioners that an advertisement came to be issued on 31st October 2002 calling eligible candidates to apply for various

posts. The petitioners applied for the post of Senior Factory Inspector since they possess necessary educational qualifications as well as

experience required for the said post. The petitioners were, in fact, permitted to undertake the written test conducted by the GPSC. The result of

the test was declared on 24th June 2003 and 45 candidates were declared successful. All the petitioners found their names in the list of successful

candidates. They, therefore, were awaiting a call for oral interview. The GPSC, however, did not call the petitioners for oral interview and selected

some other candidates which action has aggrieved the petitioners.

In response to the notice issued by this Court, affidavit in reply has been filed in each of the petitions. It is stated that the petitioners were

declared successful only provisionally. It was made clear that the candidates whose numbers are included in the provisional list do not get any right

for being called for interview. It was further clarified that only those candidates who satisfy the requirements of the advertisement and also attain

such minimum qualifying standard as the GPSC may fix for different category shall be called for interview. It was further stated that since the

petitioners did not attain the qualifying standard fixed by the GPSC, they were not included in the list of candidates who were called for interview.

The GPSC has filed further affidavits in each of the petitions. In Special Civil Application No. 4763 of 2004, it is stated that against three posts

to be filled in from general category candidates, there were 24 candidates in the list of 45 declared provisionally successful. The GPSC has,

therefore, decided to call 10 candidates for the 3 vacancies for general category candidates and drew a cut-off line upto 189 marks as qualifying

standard for being called for interview. The petitioner had received 184 marks and was, therefore, not called for interview.

5.1 In the further affidavit in reply filed in Special Civil Application No. 4764 of 2004, it is stated that the petitioner therein was also a candidate

seeking appointment against general category seats and the cut-off line of 189 marks was applied whereas the petitioner had received only 175

marks and he was, therefore, not called for interview.

5.2 In Special Civil Application No. 4765 of 2004, in the further affidavit in reply, it is stated by the GPSC that the petitioner was seeking

employment against the general category seats and applying the cut-off line of 189 marks, the petitioner was not called for interview as he had

received only 169 marks.

So far as the factual aspects of the matters are concerned, there is hardly any dispute. It is not the case of the petitioners that any person with

less marks belonging to the general category has been called for interview and the petitioners were left out. The short question, therefore, arises is

whether the GPSC erred in short-listing the candidates for being called for oral interview. To put it differently, the question is whether the GPSC

was required to call for oral interview all candidates who had passed the written test or whether it was permissible for the GPSC to apply higher

standard for limiting the number of persons to be called for interview by short-listing the candidates. This issue is no longer res integra. In the case

of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 8 made the following

observations :

The sole purpose of holding interview is to search and select the best among the applicants. It is obvious that it would be impossible to carry

out a satisfactory viva voce test if large number of candidates are interviewed each day till all the applicants who had been found to be eligible on

basis of the criteria and qualifications prescribed are interviewed. If large number of applicants are called for interview in respect of four posts, the

interview is then bound to be casual and superficial because of the time constraint. The members of the Commission shall not be in a position to

assess properly the candidates who appear before them for interview. It appears that Union Public Service Commission has also fixed a ratio for

calling the candidates for interview with reference to number of available vacancies.

On the basis of the above observations, the Hon''ble Supreme Court upheld the process of shortlilsting adopted by the M.P. Public Service

commission.

In the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Manjit Singh and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court made the following observations in para 7

and 8 of the judgment:

Now adverting to the point under consideration, it may be observed that so far as the powers and functions of the Commission in short-listing

of candidates are concerned, there can certainly be no doubt about it. Say, for example, 10,000 candidates apply for recruitment to 100 posts, it

would obviously not be possible to take full test/examination and interview of such a large number of applicants, though eligible. In that event,

short-listing of the candidates by screening out those, in respect of whom it would serve no purpose to call them for further test, may be excluded

by adopting the method of screening test. Generally speaking, a ratio of 3 : 5 candidates for one post is normally accepted depending upon the

number of seats. Therefore, for 100 posts the selecting body may in order of merit take out about first 500 candidates for further tests/interview.

The rest of the candidates would be screened out. No candidate excluded by adopting such a method of short-listing can raise any grievance

whatsoever.

But for such short-listing as indicated above, it is not necessary to fix any minimum qualifying marks. Any candidate on the top of the list at

number 1 down to 500 would obviously constitute the shortlisted zone of consideration for selection. For the purpose of elaboration it may be

observed that in case some cut-off marks are fixed in the name of short-listing of the candidates and the number of candidates obtaining such

minimum marks, suppose is less than 100, in that event screening test itself will amount to a selection by excluding those who though possess the

prescribed qualification and are eligible for consideration but they would be out of the field of consideration by reason of not crossing the cut-off

marks as may be fixed by the recruiting body. This would not be a case of short-listing. In short-listing, as observed above, any number of

candidates required in certain proportion of the number of vacancies, may be shortlisted in order to merit from serial No. 1 up to the number of

candidates required.

It can thus be seen that the power of the GPSC to shortlist the candidates for being called for interview is well recognized and well accepted. It

fact, it is found that it is not desirable to call for oral interview unduly large number of candidates disproportionate to the available vacancies which

would be detrimental to conducting effective interviews. In view of this, I do not find that the GPSC has committed any error in short-listing the

candidates for being called for interview. As noted earlier, there is no dispute about the fact that there were only three vacancies for general

category candidates and the GPSC decided to call 10 candidates out of those who had been declared successful in the written test. For the above

purpose, cut-off line of 189 marks in the written test was applied. There is no grievance that this cut-off line was not uniformly applied and that

there was any discrimination. The petitioners though had cleared the written test, it was made clear at the outset that the result is provisional and

will be called for interview only in case they fulfill the higher standard if so fixed by the GPSC. When the GPSC found it necessary in order to

conduct fair interviews to limit the number of candidates for being called for interview and when the petitioners did not fall within the zone so fixed

by the GPSC strictly on the basis of the marks received by the candidates, no illegality can be attached to such procedure.

In the result, I do not find that the petitioners have made out any case for interference. The petitions are is therefore, rejected. Notice discharged

with no order as to costs.