ORDER A.G. Qureshi, J. 1. This order shall govern the disposal of M.P. No. 1385 of 1988 Ku. Manorama Singhal v. P.S.C., Indore and three Ors., M.P. No. 1393 of 1988 Narendra Kumar Choudhary v. M.P. Public Service Commission, Indore and M.P. State, M.P. No. 1403 of 1988 Ku. Asha Pandey v. State of M.P. and P.S.C., Indore, M.P. No. 1406 of 1988 Pawan Kumar Gupta v. Madhya Pradesh P.S.C. and Anr. and M.P. No. 1407 of 1988 Bhanwarlal v. M.P. Public Service Commission, Indore and State of M.P. All these petitions are directed against the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. 2. The grievance of the petitioners, in all these petitions, is that the petitioners though qualified to be appointed as Labour Judge in the M.P. Labour Judiciary Service, they have not been called for interview by the Public Service Commission. The yard-stick adopted by the Public Service Commission is discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, all the petitioners have prayed that the M.P. Public Service Commission be directed to call the petitioners for interview for recruitment as Presiding Officer, Labour Court in the M.P. Labour Judicial Service of the State. 3. It is a common ground that, the M.P. Public Service Commission issued a public notice for recruitment of candidates to the post of Presiding Officers of Labour Courts constituted under the provisions of Section 8 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act). The qualification for being appointed as a Presiding Officer to the Labour Court is enumerated in Section 8(3) of the Act, according to which a person who has held any judicial office in India for not less than three years, or has held any office in the Labour Department not below the rank of a Labour Officer for a period of not less than five years and is a law graduate, or has practised as an Advocate or a Pleader in Madhya Pradesh for a total period of not less than five years, or is or has been a Presiding Officer of a Labour Court constituted under any law, is eligible to be appointed to that post. The advertisement issued for recruitment by the Public Service Commission has specified the number of posts which are likely to be filled up. The advertisement issued for recruitment by the Public Service Commission has specified the number of posts which are likely to be filled up. The qualifications for appearing at the interview to be held for selection for the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, were also reproduced in the advertisement, which are in accordance with Section 8(3) of the Act. The age of the candidates has also been specified in the advertisement according to which the candidates should be minimum of 25 years of age and not more than 35 years of age as on 1-1-1989. 4. In response to the above said advertisement all the petitioners submitted applications to the Public Service Commission, for appointment to the post of Presiding Officer. The Public Service Commission, did not call the present petitioners for interview. Therefore, they have filed these petitions. 5. According to the petitioner in M.P. No. 1366 of 1988 (Navnit Kumar) he fulfils all the qualifications prescribed by the law and the Rules for being appointed as aPresiding Officer of the Labour Court. He is 32 years of age, has passed B.Com., LL.B. and a practising Advocate since 13th November, 1982. According to petitioner in M.P. No. 1393 of 1988 (Narendra Kumar Choudhary) he is enrolled as an Advocate since 5-11-1982 and is 28 years of age. Therefore, he possesses all the qualifications for appointment as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. The contention of the third petitioner Bhanwarlal is that he possesess all the requisite qualifications for being appointed as aPresiding Officer. He has wrongly been deprived of an opportunity to appear at the interview, According to petitioner Pawan Kumar also he has wrongly been deprived of an opportunity to appear at the interview although he possesses all the requisite qualifications which are prescribed by the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 6. The grievance of the two petitioners Ku. Manorama Singhal and Miss Asha Pande are a little different. According to them, they being oreraged were probably not called for interview. Their grievance is that although they have not been called for interview by the Public Service Commission, in view of the fact that they were overaged, but Shri Dhananjay Tambe and Smt. Ranjana Saxena have been called for interview although they both are also overaged. As such it is a clear case of discrimination. Their grievance is that although they have not been called for interview by the Public Service Commission, in view of the fact that they were overaged, but Shri Dhananjay Tambe and Smt. Ranjana Saxena have been called for interview although they both are also overaged. As such it is a clear case of discrimination. They have also averred that in the earlier selection process in which Smt. Ranjana Saxena and Shri Dhananjay Tambe were selected as Presiding Officers of Labour Courts, both the petitioners had also competed and, therefore, even if these two candidates are treated as falling in different category, the petitioners fall in the same cate gory. 7. As the case of Ku. Manorama Singhal and Miss Asha Pandey are on different footings than the other petitioners, we propose to deal with these petitions first. 8. In reply to the averments made by Ku. Asha Pandey and Ku. Manorama Singhal, the Public Service Commission has stated that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in M.P. No. 1385 of 1988 i.e., Shri Dhananjay Tambe and Smt. Ranjana Saxena have been called for interview by the Public Service Commission because the State Government in the Labour Department, vide order No. 1(A)6/68/16-A/88 dated 5-7-1988 have relaxed the upper age limit in respect of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The copies of the orders of the State Government have also been filed with the return. 9. According to respondent No. 3, the State Government had power under Rule 21 of the M.P. Labour Judiciary Service (Gazetted Recruitment) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the rules) and, therefore, in exercise of this power the State Government relaxed the age of the respondent No. 3 in view of the fact that he was already appointed as a Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, but due to some technical defect the appointment did not continue and as a glaring injustice was done to the respondent the State Government while advertising the same post on one of which the respondent No. 3 was appointed, relaxed the age limit of the respondent No. 3. Therefore, there is no question of adopting two yardsticks by the Public Service Commission. 10. By way of additional return respondent No. 3 has further averred that the age of a candidate is relaxable if he had undergone full time training in the N.C.C. on or after 1-1-1963. Therefore, there is no question of adopting two yardsticks by the Public Service Commission. 10. By way of additional return respondent No. 3 has further averred that the age of a candidate is relaxable if he had undergone full time training in the N.C.C. on or after 1-1-1963. Provision for this relaxation has been made in Clause 5 of the conditions given in the advertisement. The respondent No. 3 had the requisite N.C.C. training for four years, i.e., 2 years for 'A' Certificate and 2 years for 'B' Certificate. Therefore, he was entitled under the advertisement conditions itself to get age relaxation of two years. Therefore, even in the absence of the order of the State Government his application was valid and it could not be rejected on the ground of he being overaged. 11. The respondent No. 4 has also taken a similar defence as that taken by respondent No. 3 and by way of additional plea she has averred that as she is a green card holder, which is filed as Annexure-R1, she is entitled to relaxation according to the terms of the advertisement itself irrespective of the relaxation in age granted by the State Government. 12. It is not in dispute before us that the orders of the State Government relaxing the age of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in M.P. No. 1385 of 1988 were passed after the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had applied for the recruitment of Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. As such there being no relaxation of age in existence on the date of the application, therefore, applications for recruitment could not be considered. Therefore, a subsequent order of the State Government about the relaxation of the ages of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is material only if the applicants are found fit for appointment and the case goes before the State Government for consideration of their appointment. However, in the instant case according to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 both of then claim entitlement for the relaxation of two years in their age on the basis of N.C.C. training and holding a green card respectively. Therefore, it is for the Public Service. However, in the instant case according to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 both of then claim entitlement for the relaxation of two years in their age on the basis of N.C.C. training and holding a green card respectively. Therefore, it is for the Public Service. Commission to verify the authenticity of these documents and if it is found that they are entitled to get relaxation of two years in upper age limit, then the Public Service Commission may take a decision in this behalf. We, therefore, refrain to express any opinion on this issue. 13. It is true that Rule 21 of the Rules empowers the State Government to relax any of conditions of eligibility in the matter of recruitment to the post of Presiding Officer. Labour Court and if the State Government makes any relaxation in this behalf it is competent to do so. But it should be borne in mind that such a relaxation can be given in respect of particular candidates or class of candidates before their application for the recruitment is made. In case there is an advertisement for general recruitment and relaxation in respect of certain persons has been made by the State Government, then it has to justify that there is no violation of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India and it is not a case of discrimination. However, in the instant case, as discussed above, relaxation was not made before the date of the application made by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Therefore, the application could not be treated as valid application in view of the fact that no relaxation order was passed by the State Government on the date of the application for recruitment. 14. The petitioners in M.P. No. 1403 of 1988 and M.P. No.1385 of 1988, Miss Asha Pande and Ku. Manorama Singhal claim age relaxation on the ground that the age was relaxed in case of Smt. Ranjana Saxena and Shri Dhananjay Tambey by the State Government. Therefore, the benefit of age relaxation be extended to them also. In view of the finding in preceding paragraph the relief sought by the two petitioners (Ku. Singhal and Ku. Pande) cannot be allowed as, the relaxation of age of Smt. Saxena and Shri Tambey can be considered by the P.S.C., on the basis of holding the green card and N.C.C. training respectively. In view of the finding in preceding paragraph the relief sought by the two petitioners (Ku. Singhal and Ku. Pande) cannot be allowed as, the relaxation of age of Smt. Saxena and Shri Tambey can be considered by the P.S.C., on the basis of holding the green card and N.C.C. training respectively. In the absence of the above grounds of relaxation of age, the order of the State Government passed subsequent to the submission of the application form would not validate the form which was invalid on the date of its submission on the ground of the candidates being overage. As such a question of extending the benefit to the two petitioners does not arise at all. 15. The grievance of petitioner Pawan Kumar is that despite his being eligible for an interview call even according to the revised criteria of the P.S.C., he has not been called for interview. According to him he was enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of M.P. at No. 772 of 1980. Since 4-5-1981 the petitioner is practising continuously and he is also Oath Commissioner at Rajpur Tahsil. According to him, although he had produced the necessary certificate about his practice along with his application, the Public Service Commission misinterpreted the certificates and, thus, deprived him of an opportunity to appear for an interview. Certificate Annexure-H clearly shows that the District Judge, Indore has certified that the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate on 31-10-1980 at the District Bar, Indore and is practising since 4-5-1981. Another certificate is from District Judge, Mandleshwar which certifies that since 1-1-1985 the petitioner is a Member of the Anjad Bar Association and from 31-10-1980 to 31-12-1984 he was Member of Indore Bar Association. Although these two certificates show an overlaping period of practice at Indore and Anjad, still it is clear that since the enrolment of the petitioner as an Advocate he is continuously practising at Indore and Anjad. We fail to see how the Public Service Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not in continuous practice. It appears that there is an error in computing the period of practice of the petitioner by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner is, therefore, held entitled to claim practising experience since May, 1981. 16. We fail to see how the Public Service Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not in continuous practice. It appears that there is an error in computing the period of practice of the petitioner by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner is, therefore, held entitled to claim practising experience since May, 1981. 16. As regards the other petitioners their grievance is that they have been deprived of their right to appear for the interview by the P.S.C. although according to the statutory requirement they are qualified to be appointed as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of all these petitioners that the Statutory Rules cannot be changed by any authority through executive instructions. The criteria evolved by the Public Service Commission in changing the years of experience as a minimum qualification for being appointed as a Presiding Officer, Labour Court from 5 years to 7//2 years is arbitrary and without any reasoning. It is also against the statutory qualifications laid down in the Act itself. 17. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the P.S.C. that the Public Service Commission has got powers of short listing the candidates to be called for interview. Since in the instant case the number of applicants was much higher than the number of posts to be filled by the Public Service Commission it had no other alternative but to evolve a criteria for calling reasonable number of candidates for interview. Such a mode is permissibile and the Public Service Commission has been given powers to short list the candidates when it feels that the number of applicants is very high in proportion to the number of posts which have to be filled in. 18. According to the learned Government Advocate, the M.P. High Court in an earlier decision had held that the public Service Commission could not change the criteria of educational qualification. Therefore the P. S. C. has no option but to change the criteria of experience for short listing the candidates and such a course is permissible. 19. To appreciate the respective contentions of the parties let us examine to different decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned Advocates. In Jayant Kumar Chavhan v. Public Service Commission, M.P., Indore and Anr. 19. To appreciate the respective contentions of the parties let us examine to different decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned Advocates. In Jayant Kumar Chavhan v. Public Service Commission, M.P., Indore and Anr. 1978 MPLJ 748 a Division Bench of this Court considered the case of State of Haryana v. Shamshcr Jang and has held that there can be no dispute with the proposition that statutory rules cannot be modified by administrative instructions. However, in that case which was a matter pertaining to recruitment of Civil Judges to the State Judicial Service, it was found that no Rules were framed for recruitment of the Civil Judges and according to executive instructions of the Government, defunct 1955 Rules of the erstwhile State of C.P. and Berar were adopted for providing guidelines for recruitment to the Judicial Service and in these Rules, Rule 21 contemplated that the Commission will have the choice of making a preliminary selection; and in accordance with Rule 21, general instructions in Clause 8 were issued to the same effect. As such it was a case wherein there was no violation of any Statutory Rules by executive instructions. On the contrary whole interview process was an outcome of the administrative instructions. Therefore the case of Jayant Kumar Chavhan v. Public Service Commission, M.P., Indore and Anr. (supra) cannot be pressed into service for the proposition that the Public Service Commission has got unfettered powers to evolve a criteria of its own choice. 20. Another Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the powers of the Public Service Commission pertaining to evolving its own criteria for calling candidates for interview in Praveenkumar Trivedi v. Public Service Commission, M.P. 1986 LIC 1990. In that case also this Court has held that the Public Service Commission could not ignore the statutory requirement for filling up a particular post and could not adopt a criteria whereby candidates fulfilling the statutory requirements were thus eliminated from being even called for interview and should give no cause to create an apprehension in the minds of the candidates that a particular criteria has been purposefully adopted so that certain favoured candidates may be benefited thereby, which may shake their confidence in the procedure adopted by the Commission. 21. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Jayant and etc. v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors. 21. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Jayant and etc. v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors. 1986 LIC 489 while considering the question of recruitment for the post of Civil Judges and the eligibility criteria adopted by the P.S.C. has clearly held that the administrative instructions by the Public Service Commission cannot modify statutory rules. In that case the criteria for eligibility of a candidate for the post of Civil Judge was practice as an Advocate for three years, but the Public Service Commission had enhanced the practising experience from 3 years to 5 years. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid circumstances has held that the assumption of the Commission in this regard is entirely without any basis. The method applied for deleting all eligible candidates who have not practised for a minimum period of five years was entirely arbitrary and cannot stand a scrutiny of reasonableness. The suitability of a candidate does not depend merely on the number of years put in at the Bar but upon the experience he has gathered by working out matters in Court. The Commission has travelled beyond the statutory provisions by evolving a criteria of inviting for an interview only those candidates who had put in practice of over five years. It is not permissible for the Commission to adopt a criteria which is in violation of the statutory rules. 22. In the light of the abovementioned decisions it is clear that the adoption of any criteria in violation of the Statutory Rules is not permissible. When a statute prescribes the minimum qualification for a particular post, it is not open for the Public Service Commission to change that criteria by executive instructions. It is not in dispute in the instant case that the eligibility of a candidate for being appointed as Presiding Officer, Labour Court is 5 years' practice at the Bar. The P.S.C. with a view to reduce the number of candidates for being called for interview enhanced the experience period and made it 7 1/2 years instead of 5 years. We fail to understand the reason behind fixing such a criteria. It cannot be debated that the minimum eligibility prescribed by the Act is 5 years practice at the Bar. Now enhancing the period of experience at the Bar is clearly contrary to the statutory provision. We fail to understand the reason behind fixing such a criteria. It cannot be debated that the minimum eligibility prescribed by the Act is 5 years practice at the Bar. Now enhancing the period of experience at the Bar is clearly contrary to the statutory provision. The Public Service Commission has no right to change the conditions of eligibility prescribed by the statute. It is now a settled position of law that the administrative instructions in no way can change the statutory provisions, and if some order in violation of the statutory provisions is passed by any executive or administrative authority, that order shall be held to be void and illegal. 23. In the instant case the Public Service Commission wanted to achieve a goal of getting the best possible candidates for interview by screening the candidates from amongst those who had made application for being considered for appointment to the post of Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. But while doing so the Public Service Commission has not taken into consideration the statutory qualifications laid down by the Legislature, which inter alia lays down 5 years of practice as an advocate or pleader as a qualification for being appointed as a Presiding Officer, Labour Court. While enhancing the period of experience it cannot be said that the P.S.C. has adopted a criteria of getting the best possible candidates out of the list of applicants. Further, it may be noted that the P.S.C. has adopted the impugned criteria even in violation of its own rules. The M.P. Public Service Commission has adopted the Rules of the Union Public Service Commission for the discharge of its business and for regulating the procedure and functions of the Commission. Now, Rule 4 under the head of 'By Selection' clearly says that if the number of applications received is such where short listing of the applications may be necessary, then the P.S.C. shall adopt the following procedure: "consider all applications received and short listing them for interview either through screening tests or on the basis of pre-determined criteria relating to academic qualifications and experience". 24. In view of the above Rule, the Public Service Commission has got two courses of action open to it for short listing the applications received. 24. In view of the above Rule, the Public Service Commission has got two courses of action open to it for short listing the applications received. One is to shortlist them through screening test or to short list them on the basis of pre-determined criteria relating to academic qualifications and experience. Therefore, when the Public Service Commission adopts the second criteria i.e., short listing the candidates on the basis of academic qualification and experience; firstly it should be ascertained that while laying down a criteria based on qualifications and experience, there is no violation of any prescribed statutory qualification and if there is no such violation then the criteria should always be a pre-determined criteria and not a criteria to be evolved after seeing the different applications. If the criteria is not pre-determined then there may be a charge of bias or favouritism. Secondly, when a criteria has to be adopted it should be based both on experience and qualification. The words used in the Rules are 'experience or qualification' and not 'experience and qualification'. 25 .Undisputedly the impugned criteria adopted by the Public Service Commission is based only on experience and that too it is not a pre-=determined criteria. Further, it is in violation of the prescribed statutory qualifications. There fore, we are of the opinion that the order impugned laying down the criteria by the Public Service Commission by raising the practising experience from 5 years to 7 1/2 years and short list of candidates on that basis is contrary to law and, therefore, the order refusing to call the petitioners for interview on the revised criteria is illegal. The order impugned passed by the Public Service Commission revising the criteria for calling the candidates for interview is, therefore, set aside. The Public Service Commission is directed to either call all the candidates who have applied for interviewer to screen the candidates through some screening test according to the aforesaid Rule of the Public Service Commission and thereafter call only those candidates for interview, who qualify for interview in the screening test. We may observe that in the other services and especially in the M. P. Judicial Service, written tests are being held. However, for the recruitment to the Labour Judiciary rules provide only interview as mode of selection. We may observe that in the other services and especially in the M. P. Judicial Service, written tests are being held. However, for the recruitment to the Labour Judiciary rules provide only interview as mode of selection. Therefore, at least a screening test can be held for getting the best possible candidates for interview for the post of presiding Officer, Labour court. 26. As a result of the aforesaid discussion W. P. Nos. 1393 of 1988, 1366 of 1988, 1406 of 1988 and 1407 of 1988 are allowed. The order of the P. S. C. revising the criteria of practising experience for the purpose of interviews is quashed. The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission is directed to either hold a screening test for reducing the number of candidates for interview or to call the four petitioners along with all the other candidates for interview in case the Public Service Commission decides not to hold any screening test., 27. As regards petitioners in M. P. No. 1385 of 1988, Ku. Manorama Singhal and M. P. No. 1403 of 1988, Ku. Asha Pandey, in the lignt of the discussion made above it is clear that these two petitioners have crossed the age of eligibility for applying to the post of Presiding Officer, Labour court and it has also been held that the two candidates Smt. Saxena and Shri Tambe should be held eligible or ineligible on the basis of their extra qualifications i. E.N. C. C. training and green car holding. Consequently the petitioners Ku. Singhal and Ku. Pandey cannot claim that they should also be called for interview. The petitions of these two petitioners are, therefore, dismissed. 28. The petitions of the remaining petitioners are allowed as aforesaid. Parties to bear their own costs in all these petitions incurred. The security amount, if deposited by the petitioners, after verification, be returned to them. Ordered accordingly.