CWP 738/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No. 738/2008 Sankalp Prakash Versus Malviya National Institute of Technology & Anr DATE OF ORDER : 04/11/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Shrey Gharana, for petitioner. Mr. NS Chauhan, for the respondents Petitioner is basically aggrieved by not being permitted to participate in the selection process initiated by the respondents for the post of Lecture (Computer Engineering) initiated in pursuance to advertisement Anx. 20. The petitioner belonging to General Category, being eligible, submitted application to participate in the selection process initiated by the respondents for the post of Lecturer (Computer Engineering) in pursuance to advertisement Anx. 20. However, in clause 9 of the advertisement it was stipulated that the institute reserves right to shortlist and restrict the number of candidates to be called for interview on the basis of qualification and experience. It has been averred by the respondents in Para No. 4 of their affidavit that in pursuance to advertisement (Ann.20), for the post of Lecturer (Computer Engineering) against two CWP 738/08 [2] vacancies, 46 applications were received and the Committee constituted by the respondents consisting of five expert Professors for shortlisting of the applications submitted by the eligible candidates, took a decision to call such candidates for interview who were having Ist class in UG and at PG degree and after adopting this criteria eligible candidates were short-listed, and finally 17 candidates in General Category and 2 candidates in SC/ST Category were called for interview. However, 11 candidates appeared for interview from General Category and 1 candidate from SC/ST and out of 12 candidates, who finally participated after shortlisting of the application, one from General and one from ST were found suitable for appointment who were appointed as Lecturers (Computer Engineering). Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was also eligible in pursuance to the advertisement Anx. 20 being a Ist Class PG degree holder; in such circumstances, there was no justification for the respondents to shortlist and the very decision taken by the respondents in shortlisting the application by adopting the criteria of Ist Class UG and PG degree is wholly arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. CWP 738/08 [3] It is true that the law has been settled that even if there is no rule or mention in the advertisement for shortlisting in case of large number of eligible candidates having applied for, shortlisting is permissible but by adopting some rational & reasonable criteria. However, in the instant case, a committee constituted by respondents took decision for shortlisting of eligible candidates by adopting criteria that only such candidates would be permitted to participate in process of selection, who were 1st Class Under Graduate & Post graduate degree holders in concerned subject. But procedure of short listing could have been made applicable only in such cases where there were large numbers of eligible candidates having applied for pursuant to advertisement after laying down certain rational criteria. This has been considered by Apex Court in MP Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kr. Potdar (1994(6) SCC 293), 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 (2008(1) SCC 362). In MP Public Service Comm. Vs. Navnit Kr. Potdar (supra), Apex Court observed : CWP 738/08 [4] “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 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 taken a consistent view that whenever posts are to be filled up on the basis of interview and if large numbers of eligible candidates have applied, some rational procedure has to be adopted by which eligible candidates can be shortlisted for ultimately being called for interview. In instant case, against post of Lecturer (Computer Engineering, however, 17 applicants from general category and two from CWP 738/08 [5] SC/ST category were found to be eligible in terms of decision being taken by respondents- committee for shortlisting eligible applicants. However, in all 11 applicants from general category and one from SC/ST category appeared for interview against two vacancies of the post of Lecturer (Computer Engineering). Thus, if eligible candidates were large in numbers having applied for the post of Lecturer (Computer Engineering)for being filled up on the basis of interview against two advertised vacancies, certainly rational & reasonable criteria for shortlisting eligible applicants have to be adopted. In the facts of instant case, if decision has been taken that such applicants having 1st Class under-graduate & post graduate degree being called for interview the criteria adopted in short-listing eligible candidates was reasonable & has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and was in consonance with Cl.9 of advertisement pursuant to which selection process was initiated by the respondents. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/ 738CW08Nov4ShortlistDs-final.doc