Nirmala Shukla And Ors vs Uoi And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 3139 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      W.P.(C) 4261/2011

       NIRMALA SHUKLA AND ORS             ..... Petitioner
                   Through  Mr.Girijesh Pandey and Mr. Shiv
                            Kumar Tripathi, Advocates.

                       versus


       UOI AND ORS                                   ..... Respondent
                                Through


+      W.P.(C) 4262/2011


       ASHISH JAISWAL AND ORS                ..... Petitioner
                    Through   Mr.Girijesh Pandey and Mr. Shiv
                              Kumar Tripathi, Advocates.

                       versus

       UOI AND ORS                                  ..... Respondent
                                Through

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                                  ORDER

% 05.07.2011

The petitioners herein in these two writ petitions have challenged

the order dated 26th April, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short, the tribunal) dismissing

O.A.Nos.437 and 438/2011. The challenge in the two OAs was to the cut

off marks fixed by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for short listing

candidates for the post of Assistant Archeologist. The contention of the

petitioners is that they meet and fulfill the qualifications mentioned in the

advertisement and, therefore, they must be called for the interview. It is

contended that the SSC could not have prescribed a short listing criteria

and called candidates who had secured 70% or more marks for the

interview.

2. There is no merit in the said contention. In the advertisement No.

SSC/Mu/1/2009 published in Rozgar Samachar 22-28 August, 2009 under

the heading 'Mode of Selection' it was mentioned as under:-

"Candidates fulfilling the minimum prescribed qualifications will be sorted on the basis of their educational qualifications, academic records, percentage of marks etc. or through a screening test at the discretion of the commission. Candidates, thus, selected may be required to undergo a written proficiency test wherever applicable/required or considered necessary by the commission at its discretion."

(emphasis supplied)

3. It is clear from the said advertisement as rightly observed by the

tribunal that SSC could resort to short listing. SSC had received 1750

applications against only 54 posts, which were advertised. After scrutiny

of applications, 1366 applications were rejected on the ground of being

overage, not meeting the essential qualification and the short listing

criteria. Learned tribunal while dismissing OAs had relied upon decision

rendered in another O.A.No.2864/2010 in which similar issue was raised

but rejected in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in B.

Ramakichenin Alia Balagandhi Vs. U.O.I. & Others, 2008 (1) SCC 362

in which it has been held as under:-

"Method of shortlisting can 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 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."

4. In the said decision reference is also made to Amlan Jyoti Borooah

Vs. State of Assam and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 227 in which it has been

held that power to shortlist and the criteria adopted should not be

subjected to judicial review, if it is reasonable and not arbitrary.

5. The tribunal has also placed reliance on Tridip Kumar Dingal and

Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 768 in which

it has been held by the Supreme Court that the purpose of shortlisting is to

eliminate large number of candidates, who have applied.

6. The decision in O.A.No.2864/2010 was made subject matter of

challenge in W.P.(C) 6289/2010 Ms. Khwairakpam Meneka Vs. Union

of India and was dismissed by the order dated 20th September, 2010. The

Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition has held that if the

screening process does not suffer from the vice of irrationality or

discrimination and could be resorted to, courts should not interfere. In the

present case, it is also noticeable that keeping in view the total number of

seats which are 54 (17 unreserved, 14 reserved for Scheduled Castes, 9 for

Scheduled Tribes, 14 for Other Backward Classes and two vacancies were

reserved for OH candidates), the Screening Committee had adopted

methodology to reduce the number of applicants as 1750 applications had

been received. The number of applications were disproportionate to the

number of posts for which selection had to be made. The advertisement

permits SSC to prescribe and fix a short listing criteria.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that the facts in the

present case are similar to facts of W.P.(C) 6289/2010, but states that the

ratio requires reconsideration. We are not inclined to accept the said

submission. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions

and the same are dismissed. No costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JULY 05, 2011 NA/VKR