1. These three applications have been filed against the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi on July 25, 2003 refusing to interfere with the procedure adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in short listing candidates for filling up the post of Scientist ''B'' in the Zoological Survey of India. It may be indicated that of the several original applications disposed of by the learned Tribunal, only three sets of Petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Tribunal.
2. Admittedly, certain essential qualifications were mentioned in the advertisement published in July, 2000 along with certain desirable qualifications. The Petitioners all claim to have the said qualifications and have, accordingly, questioned the additional procedure adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in choosing candidates for filling up the 48 vacancies which had been notified. Admittedly, the Commission in addition to the essential and desirable qualifications also gave preference to candidates, who had acquired a Ph.D. Degree with at least one year''s experience after acquiring the Ph.D. Degree as on the normal closing date, i.e. August 10, 2000. It has been contended that since the said criteria was neither a part of the essential nor the desirable qualifications, the Commission acted illegally in adopting such procedure, which eliminated the writ Petitioners herein. Appearing in support of the three applications, Mr. Phatik Chandra Das submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in upholding the method of short listing adopted by the Union Public Service Commission. According to Mr. Phatik Chandra Das, the Respondents were required to consider the case of candidates within the bounds of the qualifications as indicated in the notice inviting applications and the Commission had no authority to exceed the said bounds by adopting a procedure of its own.
3. Mr. Phatik Chandra Das submitted that it is a well established proposition of law that a recruting authority cannot travel beyond what has been mentioned in the Employment Notice and since the holding of a Ph.D. Degree and one year''s experience after obtaining such degree, was neither an essential nor a desirable qualification, using such a procedure to eliminate the Petitioners from the zone of contention, was wholly illegal and unfair and the learned Tribunal was wrong in upholding the same.
4. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Phatik Chandra Das firstly relied on a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Manjit Singh and Ors. 2004 S.C.C. L&S 73, in which while considering the question of short listing, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that fixing of cut-off marks for the purpose of screening for short listing, was improper and that the required number of candidates should be taken from the top of the list.
5. Mr. Phatik Chandra Das next relied on another decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Vinay Rampal v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. which was decided on August 8, 1983, in which it was also held in relation to admission to a Post Graduate course or a special course in General Medicines in the Government Medical College at Jammu, that once certain qualifications have been indicated in the advertisement, no executive instructions altering the qualifications, was permissible. Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bibhudatta Mohanty v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 (4) S.B.R. 394, in which in connection with the appointment in the post of Extra Departmental Mail Carriers, it was observed that where any rule or guideline provides preference in respect of some higher qualification, it would mean that all other requirements being equal, a person possessing higher qualification will be preferred but it cannot be taken as the sole criteria of preference in selection.
6. Certain other decisions were also cited by Mr. Phatik Chandra Das in the same vein and he concluded his submissions on the note that since the Petitioners had been allowed to appear at the interview on a provisional basis in terms of the interim orders passed by the learned Tribunal, their results should be declared and they should be considered for appointment in the event they were found to have succeeded in the selection process.
7. Appearing for the Union Public Service Commission, Mr. B.K. Das, learned advocate, urged that the Commission had adopted a procedure which, in fact, had been approved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a situation where in relation to the number of vacancies available, the list of candidates was very large. Mr. B.K. Das submitted that short listing was a procedure, which had been approved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, as far back as in 1994 in the case of
8. Mr. B.K. Das, also referred to a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2002) 8 S.C.C. 633, in support of his contention that in the instant case, the candidates were to be considered only on the basis of interview and not on the basis of any written test.
9. Apart from the above, Mr. B.K. Das pointed out that in the notice inviting applications for filling up the posts, if had been categorically mentioned under the heading of minimum educational qualifications as follows:
Minimum Educational Qualifications : All Applicants must fulfil the essential requirements of the post and other conditions stipulated in the advertisements. They are advised to satisfy themselves before applying that they possess at least the essential qualifications laid down for various posts. No enquiry asking for advice as to eligibility will be entertained. The prescribed essential qualifications are the minimum and the mere possession of the same 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 for the Commission to interview all the Candidates, the Commission may restrict the number of Candidates, to a reasonable limit by any or more of the following methods:
(a) on the basis of either qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement, or
(b) on the basis of experience in the relevant field, or
(c) By counting experience before or after the acquisition of essential qualifications, or
(d) By holding a screening test.
The candidate should, therefore, mention all the qualification and experience in the relevant field over and above the minimum qualifications and should attach attested/self certified copies of the Certificates in support thereof.
10. Mr. B.K. Das urged that in keeping with the aforesaid conditions, the Union Public Service Commission had taken recourse to Clause (a) of the said provisions, which entitled the Commission to impose a condition such as the one imposed by them viz. the possession of a Ph.D. Degree and one year''s experience from the date of possession of such degree at the time of making the application.
11. Mr. B.K. Das urged that neither the Commission nor the learned Tribunal had acted in excess of the notice inviting applications or contrary to the well established principles relating to shortlisting, which had been embodied in the notice itself.
12. Mr. B.K. Das submitted that this was not a case which called for interference with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
13. Mr. Dinesh Chandra Roy, learned advocate, who appeared for the Union of India, while adopting the submissions made by Mr. B.K. Das, also took a new point, which goes to the very root the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ applications. Mr. Roy pointed out that since the order impugned in these applications have been passed at New Delhi by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, any challenge to such decision would have to be made before the Delhi High Court in keeping with the observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
14. In the instant case, the facts are different, inasmuch as, although, initially, the original applications had been made in one of the instant cases before the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, ultimately, several similar applications were transferred to the Principal Bench at Delhi and were all disposed of by a common judgment sought to be impugned in the present writ applications.
15. Having regard to the views expressed in L. Chandra Kumar Supra, we are in, no doubt, that even with regard to jurisdiction the writ applications must be held to be not maintainable in this Court.
16. The writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
