CW 248/08 {1} In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.248/2008 Phool Chand Meena Versus MNIT & Ors. Date of Order ::: 13/11/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. SN Kumawat, for petitioner Mr. RD Rastogi, for respondents (caveator) At joint request, matter has been finally heard for disposal at admission stage keeping in view the nature of controversy raised herein. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that procedure adopted by respondents for eliminating him from being called for interview despite being eligible & having fulfilled academic qualification laid down by All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”) and as also in advertisement dt.01/06/207 (Ann.6) for the post of Lecturer (Metallurgical & Material Engineering), is arbitrary & violative of Art.14 & 16 of the Constitution. Advertisement dt.15/07/06 (Ann.5) was earlier issued by Malviya National Institute of Technology (Deemed University) Jaipur (“MNIT”) (respondents) for holding special recruitment against vacancies reserved for CW 248/08 {2} Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe for the posts of Lecturers in different streams including Metallurgical & Material Engg. Out of three posts advertised of Lecturer (Metallurgical Engg.), two were reserved for Scheduled Caste while one for Scheduled Tribe. However, process of selection pursuant to advertisement dt.15/07/06 (An.5) could not take place and later on a fresh advertisement was issued by respondent MNIT duly published in news papers dt.01/06/07 (Ann.6), vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe have not been separately notified; but this fact has not been disputed by respondents that out of vacancies of Lecturer (Metallurgical Engg.) advertised, one post of Lecturer was reserved for Scheduled Tribe as already notified vide advertisement dt.15/07/06 (Ann.5) – as per which, qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer was thus: “1. Post of Lecturers: Master’s Degree with 1st Class in the appropriate Branch of Engineering with good academic record throughout. Desirable: Ph.D.” While vide letter dt.F.No.1-65/CD/NEC/98-9 dt. 15/03/2000, the AICTE laid down minimum qualification & experience for teaching post CW 248/08 {3} in Degree Level Technical Institutions (Engineering & Technology Disciplines) ad infra : “1. Lecturer – First Class Bachelor’s degree in the appropriate Branch of Engineering/Technology or First Class Master’s Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology; and as regards experience, it prescribed no minimum requirement.” Since having academic qualifications (1) Under-Graduate degree - B.E. in Metallurgical Engineering), 1990 from University of Rajasthan acquiring 56.66% & (2) Post-Graduate degree of M.Tech in Non-Ferrous Metallurgical Engineering acquiring 8.34 CGPA, petitioner being a member of Scheduled Tribe, applied for the post of Lecturer (Metallurgical Engineering) in pursuance of advertisement dt. 15/07/06 (Ann.5) & dt.01/06/07 (Ann.6) – pursuant to which, process of selection was initiated by respondents; and for the post of Lecturers, interviews were held in between 11th to 14th January, 2008; but no letter of interview was received by petitioner; so he made enquiry but no fruitful purpose was served despite representations made, hence this petition. CW 248/08 {4} Grievance of petitioner is that once there were vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, to which he belongs and eligible to hold the posts as per academic qualifications laid down in advertisement and so also by AICTE, there was no justification available for respondents to eliminate him from participation in the process of selection held pursuant to advertisement (supra). Respondents have filed their reply to the petition and later on, under directions of this Court vide order dt.08/05/08, filed additional affidavit and in para 4 it has been deposed that for the post of Lecturer (Metallurgical & Material Engg.), 19 applications were received, out of which 11 were of general, 6 of Scheduled Caste while 2 of Scheduled Tribe categories and it was also averred that Committee was constituted of the expert body of Five Professors for short listing of applications submitted by candidates and it took a conscience decision to call for interview only such candidates having 1st Class at Under-Graduate & Post- Graduate degree or Ph.D, which was uniformly applied for all the faculties and since petitioner having secured 56.66% at Under- CW 248/08 {5} graduate Degree was not called for interview. It has also been averred that as per resolution having been taken by expert Committee, two candidates from general, 2 from Scheduled Caste and one from Scheduled Tribe category were called for interview after short listing but only two candidates from Scheduled Caste appeared while no candidate appeared for interview from Scheduled Tribe category and finally the Committee found one Rajendra Kumar Duchaniya from Scheduled Caste category suitable for appointment, who joined on 11/03/2008. Per contra, Counsel for respondents submits that what has been laid down by AICTE and so also in advertisements (Ann.5 & 6) were minimum academic qualification and if the Committee constituted of expert body of Professors, considered it proper to call upon candidates having 1st Class Under-Graduate & Post Graduate Degree for interview; and admittedly, petitioner not having first class at Under graduate degree, was rightly not called for interview. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions in MP Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kr. Potdar (1994 (6) SCC 293) and B. Ramakichennin Vs. Union of CW 248/08 {6} India (2008(1) SCC 362). This Court has considered rival contentions of the Counsel for parties and with their assistance examined material on record. It is not the case of respondents that petitioner does not fulfill academic qualification as laid down by AICTE and so also in advertisements in question for the post of Lecturer (Metallurgical & Material Engineering). Under regulations of AICTE which is a parent statutory body, for the post of Lecturer, 1st Class Bachelor’s degree in appropriate branch of Engineering or 1st Class Master’s Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering is the minimum academic qualification with no minimum experience required. However, under advertisements issued by respondents, pursuant to which petitioner & other applicants applied for the post of Lecturer, minimum academic qualification required was Master’s Degree with 1st class in the appropriate branch of engineering with good academic record throughout and Ph.D, as desirable qualification. Petitioner being a 1st class Post-Graduate degree holder of M.Tech in Non-Ferrous Metallurgical Engineering, having CW 248/08 {7} secured 8.34 CGPA, indisputably which is one of minimum academic qualification in terms of advertisements, is eligible to hold the post. No doubt, under advertisements (Ann.5 & 6), respondents had endorsed general instructions for the candidates, Cl.9 whereof reads ad infra: “9. The institute reserves the right to short list and restricts the number of candidates for interview to a reasonable limit on the basis of qualifications/ experience.” It is relevant to state here as is evident from Note sheet dt.24/12/07 made available for perusal of this court in course of final hearing, that Committee of five Professors was constituted by respondent only for short-listing of SC/ST candidates for the post of Lecturer in Metallurgical & Materials Engineering. Thus, neither the Committee was constituted for laying down qualifications or for some other purposes. It is also not the case of respondents that higher qualification has been prescribed by respondents than what has been laid down by AICTE (supra), and it could not be so for the reason that qualification laid down by AICTE has been noticed and notified by respondents in the CW 248/08 {8} advertisement, itself in pursuance whereof, process of selection impugned was initiated. That apart, as per para 4 of the additional affidavit, as detailed out supra, out of 19 applications received for the post of Lecturers, 11 were of general category while 6 of Scheduled Caste and two including petitioner were of Scheduled Tribe category; as per advertisements in question, two vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Caste and one for Scheduled Tribe of Lecturer (Metallurgical & Material Engineering). Thus against one vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe for the post of Lecturer (Metallurgical Engg.), there were only two applicants out of whom one was petitioner and on the basis of committee’s decision dt.24/12/07 by short listing candidates, only one candidate was called for interview, who too did not appear; as such vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe category remained unfilled. Question having arisen for consideration, is that when there was one vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribes, and there were two eligible applicants who fulfilled academic qualification, was there any justification for short listing the CW 248/08 {9} candidates. Of course, there is no doubt that short listing is adopted only in case of large numbers of candidates having applied for against vacancies advertised and even if there is no rule provided or having not specifically mentioned in advertisement, itself, yet short listing is permissible which can be resorted to. It has been so considered by Apex Court in MP Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kr. Potdar (supra), which was further considered in Union of India Vs. T.Sundera Raman (1997(4) SCC 664) and in recent decision in B.Rama Kichennin Vs. Union of India (supra). In MP Public Service Comm. Vs. Navnit Kr. Potdar (supra), Apex Court observed : “13. ... As we have already pointed out that where the selection is to be made purely on the basis of interview, if the applications for such posts are enormous in number with reference to the number of posts available to be filled up, then the Commission or the Selection Board has no option but to short-list such applicants on some rational and reasonable basis.” In B.Rama Kichennin Vs. Union of India (supra) Apex Court observed ad infra: “16. Even if there is no rule providing for short-listing nor any CW 248/08 {10} 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.” Thus viewed, Apex Court has consistently taken the view that whenever post is to be filled up on the basis of interview and if large number of eligible candidates have applied for, it would certainly not be possible for the authority to call all the eligible applicants for interview, and some rational procedure has to be adopted by which eligible candidates can be short listed for ultimately being called for interview. It is also settled that even if there is no rule or mention in the advertisement, for short listing yet in case of large number of eligible candidates having applied for, CW 248/08 {11} some rational criteria in short listing eligible applicants is permissible by Judge- made law. However, whenever short listing procedure has to be adopted it must be based on rational and reasonable criteria. In the instant case, indisputably petitioner was eligible for the post of Lecturer (metallurgical & material engg.) against one vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe and only two candidates including of petitioner have applied for, out of whom petitioner was eliminated from being called for interview and another incumbent having been called for, too did not appear for interview; thereby vacancy remains unfilled and the petitioner was short-listed due to recommendations made by Committee constituted in adopting procedure for short listing. It is not the case of the respondents that academic qualifications were amended by procedure laid down under the law. In the facts of the instant case, as regards procedure adopted by respondents of short listing candidates, while there was one vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and for which there were only two eligible applicants and the criteria for selection was CW 248/08 {12} on the basis of interview, in the opinion of this Court, there was no justification available for holding procedure of short listing the candidates and elimination of the petitioner from consideration of his candidature for the post of Lecturer (Metallurgical & Material Engg.) is in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Action of respondents in eliminating the petitioner from being called for interview under the garb of short listing for the post of Lecturer (metallurgical and material Engineering) in pursuance of advertisements (Ann.5 & 6) in the facts & circumstances of case (supra) is un- called for and is hereby quashed & set aside. Respondents are directed to consider candidature of petitioner for the post of Lecturer (Metallurgical and Material Engg) applied for pursuant to advertisement in question and if found suitable for appointment appropriate orders may be passed within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/P.12/ 248CW08RsrSelProNov13.doc.