CW 1508/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1-Civil Writ Petition No.1508/2010 Smt. Shushila Devi & Ors. Versus State & Ors. 2-Civil Writ Petition No.1529/2010 Smt. Sadhana Saini Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 03/02/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Rajendra Soni, for petitioners Mr. Ram P.Saini, for petitioner-CWP-1529/10. Since identical controversy has been involved herein, hence both the petitions were heard together at joint request, and are being decided by present order. In both these petitions, petitioners have assailed advertisement dt.18/08/2008 issued by respondents holding process of selection for the post of Supervisor (Female) initiated under Rajasthan Women & Child Development (State & Subordinate) Service Rules, 1998 (“Rules, 1998”). Counsle submits that present petitioners are holding qualification of Graduation and working as Aanganwadi Workers for last more than a decade and the post of Supervisor (Female) is included in the Schedule II of Rules, 1998 for being filled 100% by direct recruitment out of which, 75% are reserved for being filled from open market candidates while rest 25% from Aanganwadi workers. Counsel submits that the criteria which respondents have laid down vide CW 1508/10 //2// Circular dt.12/01/2010 for calling eligible candidates for interview does not give any benefit to such Aaganwadi workers thereby benefit of bonus marks due to having possessed experience as Aaganwadi workers are not being taken note of by respondents in course of process of selection impugned and the criteria laid down in the facts of the case cannot be said to be rationale, inasmuch such a criteria has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Counsel further submits that out of vacancies advertised, certain quota has to be kept resereved for Aaganwadi Workers while holding process of selection pursuant to advertisement dated 18/08/09. However, the applicants possess academic qualification of Degree of University/Board having different standards of education and irrespective of the institutions, from which Degree has been obtained, all have been placed at par while granting bonus marks in terms of Circular dt.12/01/10 which cannot be said to be rationale and such criteria is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Counsel further submits that adequate bonus marks towards experience/weightage have not been taken note of for Anganwadi Worker while laying down criteria which has caused prejudice to the petitioners. CW 1508/10 //3// In addition to what has been contended above, Shri Ram Pratap Saini Counsel for other petitioner, adds that when the minimum academic qualification is a graduation awarding of bonus marks based on the Secondary/ Sr.Secondary Examination certificate under the present criteria has no nexus and deserves to be set aside. I have considered contentions of Counsel for petitioners and with their assistance, examined material on record. This Court finds no substance in any of the contentions raised by Counsel. Post of Supervisor (Female) is included in Schedule II of Rules, 1998 for being filled 100% by direct recruitment, out of which 75% is reserved for being filled from open market candidates having possessed degree of University established by law in India and rest 25% being reserved for Anganwadi workers having possessed qualification of Matriculation/Secondary of a recognised Board or Higher Secondary under old scheme of a recognised Board & must have completed 10 years as Anganwadi worker. Procdedure for direct recruitment has been provided under Chapter IV of Rules, 1998 and applications finally received after being scrutinized by competent authority U/r 23, eligible applicants are to be called for interview and those having been found suitable in CW 1508/10 //4// the process of selection could be considered for appointment under the Scheme of Rules. However, in case of a large number of candidates having applied for the post advertised, competent authority has to opt for short listing of applicants for being called for interview by adopting reasonable/rationale criteria and even if there is no condition incorporated in the advertisement, itself, short listing of candidate has been upheld by this Court as well as Apex Court. In MP Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kr. Potdar (1994(6) SCC 293) the Apex Court held ad infra: “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.” which has further been considered by Apex Court in B.Rama Kichennin Vs. Union of India B. Ramakichennin Vs. Union of India (2008(1) SCC 362), and observed ad infra: “16. 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 CW 1508/10 //5// 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 reference in the advertisement, for short listing yet in case of large number of eligible candidates having applied for, 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. CW 1508/10 //6// In the light of judgments (supra), question with regard to short listing is no more res integra for being examined by this Court any further. As regards submission made with respect to criteria adopted by respondents as laid down vide Circular dt.12/01/2010, suffice it to say that it is a policy decision of State Government which is rationally being made applicable upon all applicants who submitted their applications for participation in process of selection initiated for the post of Supervisor (Female) pursuant to advertisement dt.18/08/2008. Criteria lays down minimum academic qualification of Degree to participate in the process but academic records always have a bearing for taking rationale decision and this cannot be said that it has no nexus. As regards submission with respect to experience rendered by petitioners as Anganwadi Worker, that has been taken note of by respondents in their criteria under Cl.2 and upto 10 bonus marks can be awarded based on experience and if petitioners have worked as Anganwadi Workers for last more than a decade, they must have been awarded bonus marks as against their alleged experience. However, it is not the case of petitioners that criteria for awarding of bonus marks based on their experience as CW 1508/10 //7// Anganwadi worker has not been taken note of by respondents while laying down cut off marks of each category. As regards submission made for keeping vacancies reserved for Anganwadi workers, suffice it to say that 25% posts are to be filled from Anganwadi workers by direct recruitment. As regards present advertisement dt.18/08/2008, it is only with regard to 75% of vacancies for being filled through direct recruitment from open market candidates; and whenever 25% being reserved for Aganwadi workers for being filled by direct recruitment is advertised, petitioners will certainly be considered. Since present recruitment under advertisement dt.18/08/2008 is only meant for such applicants being open market candidates. No vacancies can be reserved for Anganwadi workers under present advertisement and their candidature can only be examined in terms of criteria laid down as per their circular dt.12/01/10. Consequently, both the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.7/ 1508CW10(2)-Fb3-ShrtLst.doc