1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4698/2010 Shri Ravindra Rambhau Akulwar vs. State of Maharashtra and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. K.H.Deshpande, Senior Counsel with Advocate Mr. M.M.Sudame, for the petitioner. Mr. N.W.Sambre, Govt. Pleader for R-1 and 2. Mr. A.M.Gordey, Senior Counsel with Advocate Mr. A.R.Ingole, Advocate for R-4. CORAM : V.C.DAGA & A.B.CHAUDHARI,JJ DATE OF RESERVING : 21.12.2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 .01.2011 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Perused petition. 3. This petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Judgment and order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (“the Tribunal” for short) dismissing Original 2` Application No. 943/10 filed by the petitioner. Factual Matrix: 4. The respondent- Maharashtra Public Service Commission (“the MPSC” for short) vide its advertisement dated 7th August, 2008 invited applications for filling two posts of Superintending Engineer (Electrical) Maharashtra service of Electrical Engineers, Group-A in Electrical Organization under the Public Works Department of the Government of Maharashtra. Of the said two posts; one was reserved for Scheduled Caste whereas another was for open category candidate with qualifications prescribed therein. The relevant part of which along with general conditions was as under: 5. Qualification : Candidates must --- 5.1 : Possess a degree in Electrical Engineering or Electrical and Mechanical Engineering or any other qualification equivalent thereto and thereafter; 3` 5.2 : Possess experience of not less than twelve years as an Electrical Engineer out of which not less than five years shall be in a responsible position in an Electrical or mechanical Engineering Workshop or in generation or transmission or distribution of Electricity or in the administration of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the rules made thereunder. 7. General. 7.1 : x x x x x 7.2 : x x x x x 7.3 : Written objective type test (multiple choice question) will be conducted and followed by interview for selection of candidates to the posts. Marks obtained in the written test will be added to the marks obtained in the interview. However, the Commission at its discretion, may shortlist the applicants for interview based on reasonable criteria i.e. higher qualification and/or experience in place of written test. In case of the written test, the syllabus and medium of question paper and other details for the test shall be displayed on the Commission's Website. Accordingly, the weightage of written tests and interview shall also be displayed. 7.4: Candidates may please note if the number of applications received is not very high, the Commission may shortlist candidates for interview based upon reasonable criteria i.e. qualification/ experience over and above those prescribed without resorting to written test.” 7.5 to 13: x x x x x 6. The MPSC on 5.6.2010 published a list of 4` candidates who were shortlisted and called them for interview to be held on 10.6.2010. The petitioner being one of the eligible candidates was also called for interview. 7. Aggrieved by the criteria adopted for shortlisting candidates the petitioner approached the Tribunal to challenge the list published contending that the relaxation leading to experience in favour of the candidates possessing B.E. Degree in first class is in breach of the rules called the Chief Engineer (Electrical) and Superintending Engineer (Electrical) in the Electrical Organization under Public Works Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991 (“the Rules” for short). 8. On being noticed, the respondents appeared and opposed the contentions canvassed by the petitioner. 9. The Tribunal, after having heard the parties to the Original Application, for the reasons recorded 5` therein dismissed the Original Application vide its Judgment and order dated 20.9.2010 holding that the criteria for short listing adopted by the MPSC was in accordance with the advertisement and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So far as the challenge within regard to the interpretation of the terms “responsible position” canvassed by the petitioner did not find favour. 10. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. Parties were heard at length through their respective advocates. 12. The only contention, canvassed before this Court by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the criteria of short listing adopted by the MPSC for the post of Superintending Engineer is not only in violation of the Recruitment Rules but it also 6` violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. So far as the contention vehemently canvassed before the Tribunal with regard to the meaning to be attached to the term “responsible position” is concerned, passing reference in that behalf is made during the course of arguments, however, the petitioner did not pursue this line of argument to persuade this court to accept their contention. The issue 13. On the above backdrop, the basic issue which needs consideration is: whether the criteria for short listing candidates adopted by MPSC was legal and valid on the touch stone of the Recruitment Rules holding the field and Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Parameters for shortlisting. 14. Before answering the issue canvassed, it is necessary to refer to the few relevant judicial 7` pronouncements dealing with law relating to short listing. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, time and again, ruled that even if there is no rule providing for short listing nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling for the applications for the post, the Selection Body can resort to the short listing procedure if there are large number of eligible candidates who applied 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 100 applications received from the eligible candidates, it may not be possible to interview all of them. In this situation, the procedure of alleged short listing can be resorted to by the Selection Body even though there is no mention of the short listing in the Rules or in the advertisement. Thus method of short listing has received judicial recognition through number of Judgments of the Apex Court. The readily available Judgments are; i) Madhya Padesh Public Service Commission .vs. 8` Navnit Kumar Potdar and another (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 293,) ii) Government of A.P. vs. P. Dilip (1993(2) Supreme Court Cases, 310. iii) B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi vs. Union of India and others (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 362; iv) Mohd. Raizul vs. District and Sessions Judge (2000(2) Mh.L.J. 394. In the above said Judgments, it is consistently laid down that for valid short listing there have to be two requirements - i) It has to be on some rationale and objective basis; ii) if prescribed method of short listing is mentioned in the Rules or in the advertisement, then that method alone has to be followed. CONSIDERATION 16. Having taken survey of the judicial precedents, if one at the cost of repetition turns to the advertisement, it had specifically mentioned that the 9` Commission at its discretion may shortlist the candidates for interview based on reasonable criteria i.e. higher qualification and/or experience in place of written test. 17. Having seen the Judicially recognized parameters for shortlisting, now it is necessary to find out as to what is the requirement of the Recruitment Rules 1991 so far as the qualification and experience are concerned. Clause 4 thereof reads as under: Clause 4: 4. Appointment to the post of Superintending Engineering (electrical) in the Organization shall be made either,- (a) by promotion of suitable persons on the basis of selection from amongst the persons holding the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical/ Electrical Inspector having not less than five years service on regular be in the cadre of Executive Engineer (Electrical)/ Electrical Inspector in the organization and possessing qualifications prescribed for appointment by nomination in sub-clause (ii) of clause ( c) of this rule, or (b) by transfer of a suitable person from any Government Department possessing qualifications prescribed for appointment by nomination in sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of 10` clause ( c) of this rule, or ( c) By nomination from amongst candidates who,- (i) Unless already in the service of Government are not more than forty years of age; (ii) Possess a degree in Electrical Engineering or Electrical and Mechanical Engineering or any other qualification equivalent thereto: And (iii) Possess experience of not less than twelve years as an Electrical Engineer gained after acquiring the qualification mentioned in sub-clause (ii) of this rule out of which not less than five years shall be in a responsible position in an Electrical of Mechanical Engineering Workshop or in generation or transmission or distribution of Electricity or in the administration of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the rules made thereunder. 18. As per above Recruitment Rules, 12 years experience is required as Electrical Engineer, out of which minimum five years should be in a in responsible position. 19. With the above understanding of the Recruitment Rules, if one turns to the criteria adopted by the MPSC for short listing the candidates, it would be clear that in addition to the above requirement of 11` minimum five years of experience in a responsible position, the MPSC has higher experience of five years experience as Executive Engineer for Degree holder and two years as Executive Engineer for those who possessed Degree in first class. 20. The above criteria for shortlisting would show that two classes of Executive Engineers are recognized on the basis of educational merit. One holding degree with first class and another holding degree other than first class. The said classification is certainly based on rational having objective basis. Having said so needless to mention that five years experience as Executive Engineer for Degree holder and two years experience as Executive Engineer for First Class Degree holders, is certainly a requirement over and above the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Recruit Rules, 1991. Therefore, it is clear that nowhere the Recruitment Rules, 1991 are diluted by the MPSC nor the conditions prescribed in the advertisement are breached. 12` 21. Let us now examine whether the criteria prescribed for Group 'A' and Group 'B' candidates is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India ? So far as the open candidates falling in 'Group A' are concerned, five years experience as Executive Engineer is prescribed for them; whereas for the candidates falling in 'Group B' only two years experience as Executive Engineer is prescribed with additional condition that they must have degree in first class. Can it be said to be discriminatory criteria of short listing not in consonance with Article 14. The answer has to be in negative for the simple reason that the candidates falling in 'Group A' are Executive Engineers with degree without answering the stringent requirements of holding Degree in First Class; whereas for the candidates falling in 'Group B', the experience prescribed for them is of two years as Executive Engineer with additional requirement of First Class Degree. 22. As already found nowhere recruitment rules are diluted nor any relaxation is given. In one case 13` higher educational merit is recognized with little less experience; whereas in another case educational merit is diluted with higher experience. Both these criterion are based on intelligible rational with object of short listing candidates so as to select best one. 23. Let us consider the challenge from another angle. Let us assume for the sake of argument that, had there been two years experience as Executive Engineer prescribed for 'Group A and B' both for shortlisting in place of five years, the same would have been legal and valid criteria. It would not have been in breach of Rules of 1991 or Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 24. In the case in hand, on one hand experience of two years is prescribed with additional condition of having degree in first class. Therefore, the criteria adopted for short listing can hardly be said to be irrational or having effect of diluting the Recruitment Rules. Merely because five years experience as 14` Executive Engineer is prescribed for candidates not having degree in first class cannot be said to be in violation of Rules or Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. So far as the question relating to the meaning to be attached to the term “responsible position” is concerned, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. 26. In the result, the petition is devoid of any substance. It is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE patle 15`