MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus NAVNIT KUMAR POTDAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 19-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
A 
v. 
NA VNIT KUMAR POTDAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJI AND N.P. SINGH, J.] 
B 
Service law-Selection-Interview-Short-listing-Section board can do 
short-listing on rational and reasonable basis-But short-listing process shall 
not alter eligibility criteria prescribed under the rules. 
M.P. Industrial Relations Act 1960: Section 8. 
·' 
Public Service Commission-Recruitment-Presiding Officers of 
Labour Courts- Eligibility-Statutory requirement of five years of practice as 
advocate-Large number of applications received by Commission-Decision 
c 
to call for interview candidates only with seven and a half years prac-
D 
tice-Held does not amount to altering the criteria prescribed by statute. 
Under Section 8(3)(c)of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act 1960, five 
years practice as an advocate is required for appointment to the post of 
Presiding Officer in the Labour Courts. The Appellant-Commission in-
vited applications for these posts. In view of the large number of applica-
E 
tions received, the Commission decided to call for interview only such 
candidates who had completed seven and a half years of practice, instead 
of calling all the applicants with five years practice. 
The respondents filed writ petition in the High Court questioning 
the validity of the Commission's order contending that it was not open to 
the Commission to raise the period to seven and a half years and debar 
those applicants who fulfil the statutory requirement of five years. 
The High Court allowed the petitions holding that raising the period 
F 
of practice for the purpose of calling the candidates for interview G 
amounted to changing the statutory criteria by an administrative decision 
and directed the Commission to call all the applicants for interview who 
had completed five years of practice. The Public Service Commission 
preferred appeals in this Court. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was pointed out that there is no H 
665 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. · 
A 
presumption that an Advocate having seven and a half years of experience 
will be more suitable fo~ the post of Presiding Officer of the Labour Courts 
than an advocate having only five years of experience because it all depends 
on the personal merit of the candidate concerned. 
B 
c 
Allowing the C()mmission's appeals and setting aside the judgment 
of the High Court, this Court 
HELD : 1. Where the selection is to be made purely on 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 Commis~ 
sionor the Selection Board can short-list such applicants on some rational 
and reasonable basis. However, the decision regarding short-listing the 
number of candidates who have applied for the post must be based not on 
any extraneous consideration, but only to aid and help the. process of 
selection of the best candidates among the applicants for the post in ques-
tion. This process of short-listing shall not amount to altering or substitut-
D ing the eligibility criteria given in statutory rules or prospectus. In 
substance and reality, this process of short-listing is part of process of 
selection, which the High Court did not appreciate. 
E 
F 
[669-G, 669-C, 671-A & BJ 
2. If with five years of experience an applicant is eligible, then no 
fault can be found with the Commission if the applicants having completed 
seven and a half years of practice are only called for interview because such 
applicants having longer period of practice, shall be presumed to have 
better experience. This process is not in conflict with the requirement of 
Section 8(3)(c) which prescribes the eligibility for making an application 
for the post in question. [671-C, DJ 
3. It is true that it has been found that sometimes the persons with 
lesser years of experience and practice have proved to be better Advocates 
and they excel in professions. The success in profession is not necessarily 
linked with the years of practice. But that may be an exception. Normally, 
G it is presumed that with longer experience an Advocate becomes more 
mature. In any case, fixing the limit at seven and a half years instead of 
five years of practice for purpose of calling the candidates for interview 
cannot be said to be irrational, arbitrary having no nexus with the object 
to select the best amongst the applican

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.