MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONversusNAVNIT KUMAR POTDAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

      MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                                   A
                        v.
       NAVNIT 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.
                                                                                 c
      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
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        F
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
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.

          Allowing the C()mmission's appeals and setting aside the judgment
B 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
c   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.
                                                     [669-G, 669-C, 671-A & BJ
          2. If with five years of experience an applicant is eligible, then no
E   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
F
        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 applicants. [672-D, E]

H         State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Ors., [1974] 1
     M.P.PUBLICSERVICECOMMN.v.N.KPOIDAR[N.P.SINGH,J.]                    667

 S.C.R 165 andAshok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.,          A
"[1985) 4 S.C.C. 417, relied on.

    Praveen Kumar Trivedi v. Public Service Commission, M.P. (1986)
Labour & Industrial Cases, 1990, referred to.

     Hennon Finer, Theory and Practice of Modem Government, page 779            B
and Kothari Committee's Report on the "Recruitment Policy and Selection
Methods for the Civil Services Examination", referred to.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6103 of
1994 etc. etc.
                                                                                c
     From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.89 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Misc. P. No. 1366 of 1988.

      G.L. Sanghi, T.C. Sharma, Rajiv Sharma and Ms. Neelam Sharma
for the Appellant.                                                              D
      AP. Dhamija, Sushil Kumar Jain, Sakesh Kumar and S.K Agnihotri
for the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                E
      N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted.

       The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Commission'), is the appellant in these appeals, against
a common judgment of the High Court passed in the several Writ Petitions
filed by the respondents, questioning the validity of an order, issued by the   F
commission raising the period of practice as an Advocate _from five years
to seven· and half years while calling applicants for interview, for appoint-
ments against the posts of Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts.

      An advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment,        G
to the post of Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts constituted under
the provisions of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act'). Nine posts of such Presiding Officers had to be filled up,
out of which only four posts were available to the general category can-
didates. Pursuance to the advertisement, several applications were
received. In view of Section 8(3)(c) of the Act in the advertisement it was     H
    668                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A     prescribed that the applicant should have practised as an Advocate or a
    . pleader for a total period of not less than five years. It appears that in view
      of the large number of applications received from the general category
      candidates against 4 posts, a decision was taken by the Commission to call
      for interview only 71 applicants, although 188 applicants were eligible, as
      per requirement of the advertisement. Only those candidates were called
B     for interview who had completed seven and half yeai=s of practice although
      in view of Section 8(3)(c), five years of practice as an Advocate or a
      pleader in the Madhya Pradesh was the minimum requirement. According
      to the writ petitioners, as the statutory requirement under Section 8(3)(c)
      was only five years of practice, as an Advocate or a pleader, it was not
C     open to the Commission to raise the said period upto seven and half years
      and to debar applicants who had applied for those posts and ·who fulfilled
      the statutory requirement prescribed under Section 8(3)(c) of the Act.

            The High Court allowed the said writ petitions taking the view that
    ·as the statutory qualifications in respect of the practice was oply five years,
D    raising the said period from five to seven and half years amounted to laying
     down a criteria in violation of the prescribed statutory criteria. A direction
     was given either to call all the applicants for interview who had completed
     5 years of practice as required by Section 8(3)(c) of the Act or to screen
     the applicants through some test and thereafter to call only such applicants
E    for.interview who qualify at the said screening test.

           The relevant part of Section 8 of .the Act is as follows :.
              11
               8. Labour Courts (1) The State Government shall, by notification
              constitute one or more Labour Courts having jurisdiction in such
F             local area or. areas as may be specified in such notification.

             (2) The Labour Court shall be presided over by a Smgle person
             to be appointed by the State Government with the approval of the
             Chief Justice of the High Court.        .

G            (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Presiding
             Officer of Labour Court unless. -

             (a) he has held any judicial office in India for not less than three
             years; or

H            (b) he has held any office in the Labour Department not below
     M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN. v. N.K POIDAR [N.P. SINGH, J.J           669

        the rank of a Labour Officer for a period of not less than five years   A
        and is a law graduate; or

        (c) he has practised as an Advocate or a pleader in Madhya
        Pradesh for a total period of not less than five years; or

                                                                                B
From Section 8(3)(c), it is apparent that unless an advocate or a pleader
has practised in Madhya Pradesh for a total period of not less than five
years, he is not eligible to apply for the post of Presiding Officer of the
Labour Courts. From the affidavits filed on behalf of the Commission, it
appears that large number of applications had been received for the four C
posts which were to be filled up from the general category candidates. A
decision was taken to call for interview only such candidates who had
completed seven had years years of practice, instead of calling for interview
all applicants who had put in five years of practice, which was the minimum
requirement to make an applicant eligible to apply for the post. Even then D
for four posts, 71 candidates were to be interviewe~

       The question which is to be answered is as to whether in the process
of short-listing, the Commission has altered or substituted the criteria or
the eligibility of a candidate to be considered for being appointed against
the post of Presiding Office, Labour Court. It may be mentioned at the E
outset that whenever applications are invited for recruitment to the dif-
ferent posts, certain basic qualifications and criteria are fixed and the
applicants must possess those basic qualifications and criteria before their
applications can be entertained for consideration. The Selection Board or
the Commission has to decided as to what procedure is to be followed for F
selecting the best candidates amongst the applicants. In most of the ser-
vices screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the
numbers of the ;::andidates 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 G
where the selection is to be made only on basis of interview, the Commis-
sion or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the
number of candidates who should be called for interview. It has been
impressed by the courts from time to time that where selections are to be
made only on the basis of interview, then such interviews/viva voce tests
must be carried out in a through and scientific manner in order to arrive H
    670                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of the candidate.

         Herman Finer in his book 'Theory and Practice of Modern
    Government' at page 779 says :

                 "If we really care about the efficiency of the civil service· as an
B            instrument of government, rather than as heaven-sent opportunity
             to find careers for our brilliant students, these principles should
             be adopted. The interview should last at least half an hour on each
             of two separate occasions. It should be almost entirely devoted to
             a discussion ranging over the academic interests of the candidate
c            as shown in this examination syllabus, and a short verbal report
             could be required on such subject, the scope of which would be
             announced at the interview.........."

         The sole purpose of holding interview is to search and select the best
  among the applicants. It is obvious that it would be impossible to carry out
D a satisfactory viva-voce test if large number of candidates are interviewed
  each day till all the applicants who had been found to be eligible on basis
  of the criteria and qualifications prescribed are interviewed. If large num-
  ber of applicants are called for interview in respect of four posts, the
  interview is then bound to be casual and superficial because of the time
E constraint. The members of the Commission shall not be in a position to
  assess properly the candidates who appear before them for interview. It
  appears that Union Public Service Commission has also fixed a ratio for
  calling the candidates for interview with reference to number of available
  vacancies.
F
          In Kothari Committee's Report on the "Recruitment Policy and
    Selection M~thods for the Civil Services Examination" it has also been
    pointed out in respect of interview where a written test is also held as
    follows:

G           "The number of candidates to be called for interview, in order of
            total marks in written papers, should not exceed, we think        twiee
            the number of vacancies to be filled .........."

          In this background it is all the more necessary to fix the limit of the
H   applicants who should be called for interview where there is no written test,
     M.P.PUBLICSERVICECOMMN.v.N.KPOIDAR[N.P.SINGH,J.)                       671

on some rational and objective basis so that personality and merit of the          A
persons who are called for interview are properly assessed and evaluated.
It need not be pointed out that this decisfon 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              B
question. This process of short-listing shall not amount to altering or
substituting the eligibility criteria given in statutory rules or prospectus. In
substance and reality, this process of short-listing is part of process of
selection. Once the applications are received and the Selection Board or
the Commission applies its mind to evolve any rational and reasonable              C
basis, on which the list of applicants should be short-listed, the process of
selection commences. 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 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 will not be in conflict        D
with the requirement of Section 8(3)(c) which prescribes the eligibility for
making an application for the post in question. In .a sense Section 8(3)(c)
places a bar that no person having less then five years of practice as an
Advocate or a pleader shall be entitled to be considered for appointment
to the post of Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. But if amongst several       E
hundred applicants, a decision is taken to call for interview only those who
have completed seven and half years of practice, it is neither violative nor
in conflict with the requirement of Section 8(3)(c) of the Act.

       This Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander               F
Marwaha and Ors., (1974) 1 SCR 165 had to consider as to whether the
appointments could have been offered only to those who scored not less
than 55% marks when Rule 8 which was under consideration, in that case,
made candidates who had obtained 45% or more in competitive examina-
tion eligible for appointment. This Court li.eld that Rule 8 was a step in the     G
preparation of a list of eligible candidates with minimum qualifications who
may be considered for appointment. The list is prepared in order of merit
and the one higher in rank is deemed to be more meritorious than the one
who is lower in the rank. There was nothing arbitrary in fixing the scoring
of 55% for the purpose of selection although candidate obtaining 45% was
eligible to be appointed.                                                          H
    672                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A          In the ·case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and
    Ors.,(1985) 4 S~C 417 it was said :

                ".......... Only 11to12 candidate are called for interview in a day
            of 5-1/2 hours. It is obvious that in the circumstances, it would be
            impossible to carry out a satisfactory vivo voce test if such a large
B           unmanageable number of over 1300 candidates are to be inter-
            viewed. The interviews would then tend to be casual, superficial
            and sloppy and the assessment made at such interviews would not
            correctly reflect the true measure of the personality of the can-
            didate..............."
c
           On behalf of the respondents, it was pointed out that there is no
    presumption that an Advocate having seven and half years of experience
    will be more suitable for the post of Presiding Officer of the Labour Courts
    than an Advocate having only years of experience because it all depends
D   on the personal merit of the candidate concerned. It is tnie that it has been
    found that sometimes the persons with lesser years of experience and
    practice have proved t<? be better Advocates anci they excel in profession.
    The success in profession is not necessarily linked with the years of
    practice. But that may be an exception. Normally, it is presumed that with
    longer experience an Advocate becomes more mature. In any case, this
E   fixing the limit at seven and half years instead of five years of the practice
    for purpose of calling the interview cannot be said to be irrational, arbitrary
    having no nexus with the object to select the best amongst the applicants.

          The High Court has taken the view that raising the period from five
F years to seven and and half years practice for purpose of calling the
  candidates for interview amounted to changing the statutory criteria by an
  administrative decisions. According to us, the High Court bas not ap-
  preciated the true implication of the short-listing which does not amount
  to altering or changing of the criteria prescribed in the Rule, but is only a
  part of the selection process. The High Court has placed reliance on the
G case of Praveen Kumar Trivedi\.. 'Public Service Commission, M.P. (1986)
  Labour & Industrial Cases, (1990) where it has been pointed out that
  Commission cannot ignore a statutory requirement for filling up a par-
  ticular post and cannot opt a criteria whereby candidates fulfilling the
  statutory requirements are ~limina.ed from being even called for interview.
H As we have already pointed out that where the selection is to be made
          M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN. v. N.K. POIDAR [N.P. SINGH, J.]          673

     purely on basis of interview, if the applications for such posts are enormous A
     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.

           Accordingly these appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High
     Court is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order   B.
     for costs.

     T.N.A.                                                     Appeals allowed.




..