UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusT. SUNDARARAMAN AND ORS.

A                            UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
                                          v.
                         T. SUNDARARAMAN AND ORS.

                                   APRIL 9, 1997

B               [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.)

            S e1vice Law :

         Selection-Post of Assistant Professor of Medicine-Adve1tisement
C issued by Union Public Seivice Commissimi-Sho1tlisting of candidates with
  a minimum of 4 ycw:1 e.xpc1ience, for illte1vie1v--Challe11ge of-T1ibwzal
  remitting the case to UPSC for re-processing of all applications disapproving
  the sho1tlisti11g--011 appeal held, the slz01tlisting procedure adopted by UPSC
  legitimate-Tribunal's decision set aside.

D           ,\'1.P. Public Se1vice Commission \'. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Anr., JT
    (1994) 6 SC 302 and Govt. of A.P. v. P. Dilip Kumar & Anr., JT (1993) 2
    SC 138, relied on.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION               Civil Appeal No. 44 nl
    1990.
E
          From the .Judgment and Order dated 29.6.89 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. No. 381 of 1988.

         P.P. Malhotra, S. \Vasim A. Oadri and C.V. Subba Rao for the
    Appellants.
F
            Chandan Ramamurthi for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was ddivered :

            The Union Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission')
G issued an advertisement dated 10.10.1987 inviting applications for three
    posts of Assistant Professors of Medicine. The essential qualifications for
    the post were set out in the application. One of the qualifications was : at
    least three years' teaching experience in the concerned speciality as a
    Lecturerffutor/Demonstrator/Senior Resident/Registrar after obtaining
H   the requisite post-graduate degree qualification. Nole 21 to the advertise-
                                         792
                       U.O.I. v. T. SUNDARARAMAN                           793

ment states that the prescribed essential qualifications were the minimum         A
qualifications and a mere possession of minimum qualifications does not
entitle the candidates to be called for interview. Where the number of
applications received in response to an advertisement is large and it will
not be convenient or possible fcir the commission to interview all the
candidates, the commission may restrict the number of candidates to a
reasonable limit on the basis of qualifications and experience higher than
                                                                                  B
the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or by holding a screening
test.

         In the present case 37 applications were received for the three posts.
',The Commission thereupon shortlisted the candidates to be called for            C
  interview on the basis of 4 years' experience or more. As a result, 20
  candidates were called forinterview. Respondent No. 1 did not qualify for
  shortlisting and hence he was not called for interview.

       He along with one Dr. V.S. Gopalakrishnan filed an application D
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal') for setting aside the selection to the post of
Assistant Professor of Medicine pursuant to the said advertisement by
challenging shortlisting. The Tribunal held that the Commission had not
filed a separate reply. Taking note of an averment made by the applicants
before the Tribunal that a large number of vacancies were available, it E
remitted the case to the Commission for re-processing all applications
including those of the applicants for fresh selection, disapproving of the
shortlisting done by the Commission.

      The Tribunal has clearly erred in doing so. Note 21 to the advertise- F
ment expressly provides that if a large number of applications are received
the commission may shortlist candidates for interview on the basis of higher
qualifications although all applicants may possess the requisite minimum
qualifications. In the case of M.P. Public SeTVice Co111111issio11 v. Navnit
Kwnar Potdar & Anr., JT (1994) 6 SC 302 this court has upheld shortlisting
of candidates on some rational and reasonable basis. In that case, for the G
purpose of shortlisting, a longer period of experience than the minimum
prescribed was used as a criterion by the Public Service Commission for
calling candidates for an interview. This was upheld by this Court. In the
case of Govt. of A.P. v. P. Dilip Kumar & Anr., JT (1993) 2 SC 138 also this
Court said that it is always open to the recruiting agency to screen can- H
    794                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A didates due for consideration at the threshold of the process of selection
  by prescribing higher eligibility qualification so that the field of selection
  can be narrowed down with the ultimate objective of promoting candidates
  with higher qualifications to enter the zone of consideration. The proce-
  dure, therefore, adopted in the present case by the Commission was
B legitimate. The decision of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the
  appeal is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

    G.N.                                                       Appeal allowed.