LexB. RAMAKICHENIN@ BALAGANDHI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. ~. A B. RAMAKICHENIN@ BALAGANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 16, 2007 B [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Service Law: c Selection through interview-Short-listing of candidates-HELD: Method of short-listing can validly be adopted by Selection Body provided it has some rational or objective basis-If a method of short- listing has been prescribed in the rule or advertisement then that method alone has to be followed-On facts, short-listing on the ground D of two years experience after MSc. degree cannot be sustained as the advertisement providing for the method of short-listing does not ~ mention that experience must be after getting M.Sc. degree- Appointment of candidate having two years experience before obtaining MSc. degree, upheld. E An advertisement for the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department, Government of Pondicherry was issued inviting applications from the candidates having M.Sc. degree in Agriculture and two years experience in extension work/soil/Input Analysis. The appellant applied for the post. The UPSC short-listed F the candidates and did not call the appellant for interview on the • ground that he did not have the two years experience after obtaining the M.Sc. degree. The appellant filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that there was no requirement that the two years experience should be after obtaining the M.Sc. G degree and as he had the requisite experience before obtaining M.Sc. degree, he fulfilled the requisite conditions. On the direction of the Tribunal the appellant was interviewed; and since he stood '>. first in the merit list, he was appointed to the post. The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court, which quashed the H 120 .t B. RAMAKICHENIN @BALAGANDHI v. UNION OF 121 INDIA appointment of the appellant holding that there was no irrationality A or illegality in the method of short-listing adopted by the UPSC. Aggrieved, the affected candidate filed the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is well settled that the method of short-listing can B be validly adopted by the Selection Body. 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 ifthere are a large number of eligible candidates and it is not possible for the authority to interview all of C them. The procedure of short-listing is only a practical via-media which has been followed by the courts in various decisions since otherwise there may be great difficulties for the selecting and appointing authorities as they may not be able to interview hundr.eds and thousands of eligible candidates. However, for valid short-listing D there have to be two requirements -(i) it has to be on some rational and objective basis; and (ii) if a prescribed method of short-listing has been mentioned in the rule or advertisement then that method alone has to be followed. [Para 15, 16 and 17] [125-C, D, E, F; 126-A] Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar; Potdar and Anr., [1994] 6 SCC 293 ;and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip Kumar and Anr., [1993] 2 SCC 310, etc., relied on. E 1.2. Ordinarily, the Court does not interfere with administrative F decisions. However, in the instant case' in paragraph 3.1 of the advertisement of the UPSC dated 23.5.1998, the method of short- listing has been given. Hence the UPSC cannot resort to a method of short-listing other than that which has been prescribed in paragraph 3.1. In the said paragraph, it is mentioned that the G Commission may restrict the number of candidates on the basis of either qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or on the basis of the experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or on the basis of experience in the relevant field. Experience after getting H 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. ~ \ A the M.Sc. degree cannot be said to be higher than the experience .. before getting the M.Sc degree. Also, the advertisement dated 23.5.1998 does not mention that two years experience must be after getting the M.Sc. degree. Hence, the Court cannot add words to the advertisement and must read it as it is. B [Para 18, 20 and 21] [126-B, D, E, F, G; 127-A-B] Ramana Dayaram S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.