THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.20581 of 2010 Date of Order: 08-12-2010 Between: 1. Ganti Ananta Nagamani and another ..Petitioners And 1. The District &Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram and another. ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.20581 of 2010 Order: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners questioning Instruction No.6 of General Instructions in the Notification dated 22-02-2010 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, inviting applications to the post of Junior Assistant, Personal Assistant (Steno- Typist), Typist in the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Services specifying in the event of more than 20 candidates applying for each vacancy, such applications will be shortlisted on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and other relevant considerations, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 (for short “the 2003 Rules”) and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to set aside the Notification. 2. It is stated that the 1st petitioner, who passed Intermediate Examination in the year March, 1996 and possess Master’s Degree in Commerce from Andhra University, and the 2nd petitioner, who belongs to BC “D” category passed Intermediate Examination in August, 1997 and possess B.Sc., B.Ed. qualification, have applied for the post of Junior Assistant & Field Assistant and Junior Assistant respectively. The written examination is to be held on 22-08-2010. As the petitioners have not received the hall tickets, they made enquiry with the officials of the 1st respondent, which reveals that the hall tickets were being despatched to the candidates only who secured 75% in the Intermediate Examination. As per Annexure-I under Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, the post of Junior Assistant is placed in Category 4 and the qualification prescribed is that the candidate must have passed Intermediate Examination conducted by A.P. State Board of Intermediate Education or equivalent examination and the post of Field Assistant is placed in Category 9 and the qualification prescribed is that the candidate must have passed Intermediate Examination conducted by A.P.State Board of Intermediate Education or any equivalent examination. 3. Instruction No.6 of the General Instructions in the Notification dated 22-02-2010 deals with short listing of candidates, which reads as under: “In the event of more than 20 candidates applying for each vacancy, such applications will be short listed on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and other relevant considerations. Mere applying will not give any right to any person to be called for interview as the applications of the candidates will be short listed as per the guidelines issued by the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad from time to time.” 4. It is also stated that General Instructions/Guidelines cannot override the statutory Rules and cannot replace the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. By prescribing eligibility under Instruction No.6 of the General Instructions the petitioners were not permitted to write examination. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. This Court while admitting the writ petition permitted the selection process to go on but no orders of appointment shall be issued. 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent stating that impugned notification has been issued as per the Rules after obtaining necessary orders from the High Court in the letter Roc.No.665/2008-RC, dated 19-02-2010. The 1st petitioner submitted application for the post of Junior Assistant & Field Assistant enclosing certificates with regard to her educational qualification. A re-notification was issued on 22-02-2010 calling for the applications from the eligible candidates for one post of Examiner, three posts of Copyists, five posts of Field Assistants. Petitioners 1 and 2 submitted their applications for the post of Junior Assistant pursuant to the notification dated 22-02-2010. Five posts of Field Assistants are reserved for the following communities: Category No. of Posts OC 3 OC (Woman) 1 BC (C) 1 For the said five posts of Field Assistants, 1384 applications were received from the candidates and Employment Exchange sponsored 100 candidates. The above applications were shortlisted to 100 at the ratio of 1:20 as per the Instruction No.6 of General Instructions mentioned in the Notification and hall tickets are sent to 100 short listed candidates. The marks secured by the last candidates for OC (Woman) is 65.6% and for OC (General) is 72.7% for the post of Field Assistants. Similarly, 10 posts of Junior Assistants are reserved for the following categories: Category No. of posts OC 4 OC (Woman) 3 ST 1 OC (Ex-servicemen) 1 OC (PH) (Hearing Handicapped) 1 In all, 5969 applications have been received from the candidates apart from 100 candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Since more than 20 candidates have applied for each vacancy, the applications were short listed to 200 at the ratio of 1:20. The marks secured by the last candidate for OC (Woman) is 77.6% and for OC is 85.2% for the post of Junior Assistants. The 1st petitioner belongs to “OC” category and she secured 54.5% marks in the qualifying examination, viz., “Intermediate”. Therefore, her case was not considered for written examination either in “OC” category or “OC (Woman)” category. The 2nd petitioner belongs to BC “D” category but he comes under “OC” category, as there is no vacancy reserved for BC “D” category. He secured 47.9% marks in the qualifying examination. Hence, his case was not considered for sending hall ticket. Therefore, both the petitioners were not sent hall tickets for written examination. 7. Sri M.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that shortlisting of candidates can be undertaken only for viva voce and not for written examination. To buttress the said submission reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. NAVNIT KUMAR POTDAR[1] and B. RAMAKICHENIN V. UNION OF INDIA[2] and also unreported judgment of this Court in V.CHRYSOLITE v. THE HIGH COURT OF A.P. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, GENERAL, HYDERBAD[3]. 8. This Court in W.P.No.9437 of 2010 was called upon to decide prescribing Degree qualification as against the qualification of Intermediate shown in the notification issued by the District Judge, Adilabad for calling applications to the post of Junior Assistant is valid or not. 9. This Court after considering the qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Assistant under Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules was of the view that the respondents over looked guideline No.7(a) of the circular instructions issued in Roc.No.2318/96-C1(1), dated 01-07-1996 and the guideline 7(a) is in consonance with the educational qualification prescribed by Rule 8(a) read with item No.4 of Annexure-I of the 2003 Rules. Guideline 7(a) does not empower the appointment authority/recruiting authority to take into consideration any higher qualification as the criterion for shortlisting the candidates contrary to prescribed qualification as per the 2003 Rules. Though the circular instructions were of the year 1996 which were issued prior to the 2003 Rules coming into force, the said guideline 7(a) does not contravene the 2003 Rules. In the notification issued by the 2nd respondent it is not notified that higher educational qualifications than prescribed educational qualification will be taken into consideration in shortlisting the candidates and shortlisting the candidates on the basis of possessing of higher educational qualifications is contrary to Rule 8(a) of 2003 Rules and also contrary to the notification dated 04-12-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent in the absence any statutory Rule empowering the respondents to shortlist the candidates on the basis of higher educational qualification and shortlisting the candidates is also contrary to guideline 7(a) of the circular instructions issued by the High Court administration and accordingly set aside the process of selection and recruitment of candidates for the posts of 17 Junior Assistants. 10. But the same is not the case on hand. This court already held guideline 7(a) under circular instructions dated 01-07-1996 does not contravene the 2003 Rules. It was clearly notified in Instruction-6 of General Instructions, in the event of more than 20 candidates applying for each vacancy, such applications will be short listed on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and other relevant considerations. By prescribing the said guideline the qualifications prescribed under Rule 8(a) have not been altered. 11. In NAVNIT KUMAR POTDAR’ s case (1 supra) the Supreme Court categorically held that it is for the Selection Board or the Commission to decide as to what procedure has to be followed for selecting the best candidates from amongst the applicants. In most of the services, screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the number of candidates who have to be called for interview. Such screening tests or written tests have been provided in the concerned statutes or prospectus which govern the selection of the candidates. But where the selection is to be made only on basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. 12. In B. RAMAKICHENIN’s case (2 supra) it was held even if there is no rule providing for shortlisting nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the selection body can resort to a shortlisting 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 shortlisting can be resorted to by the selection body, even though there is no mention of shortlisting in the rules or in the advertisement. 13. But in the case on hand, it was already advertised that shortlisting will be undertaken at the ratio of 1:20 on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination, which is not irrational or arbitrary. 14. The challenge must therefore fail and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. 08-12-2010 Murthy [1] (1994) 6 SCC 293 [2] (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 177 = (2008) 1 SCC 362 [3] W.P.No.9437 of 2010, dated 25-10-2010