JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, C. J.—By this common judgment and order, we dispose of five Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and registered as Civil Writ Petitions No. 1784, 1785, 2007, 2026 and 2036 of 1995. 2. The Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement calling for applications for the posts of Lecturer (College Cadre) Class I. The said advertisement is available at Annexure P-I to the Writ Petition No. 2036/95. In the advertisement, eligibility for Lecturership was also incorporated, which runs as follows: "The candidates who have already qualified the National Eligibility Test for Lecturership of U G. C. and are also otherwise qualified, will be directly called for interview. The remaining applicants, who have not qualified the N. E T of U. G. C. bat possess the other prescribed qualifications, will be subjected to a written objective test and only those of them who qualify the said test in the concerned subject will be called for viva voce test alongwith those who have already qualified the U. G. C.s N. E T. The qualifying standard for the written test will be decided by the Commission in its discretion." 3. Subsequently, in accordance with the direction of the University Grants Commission, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a corrigendum to the advertisement at Annexure P-l notifying that the candidates who have been awarded Ph. D Degrees or submitted that Ph. D thesis upto 31-12-1993 and the candidates who have done M Phil upto 31-12-1992 were exempted from the National Eligibility Test for the Lecturership. The said advertisement is available at Annexure P~9 to the writ petition registered as C. W. P, No. 1784/95. Subsequently, another Notification was issued by the Public Service Commission (respondent) that if after the conduct of tests for eligibility for lecturership by the Commission, the number of eligible candidates vis-a-vis the number of vacancies in the subject(s) concerned are inordinately large, the Commission may, at its own discretion, short list the number of candidates to be called for viva voce test by subjecting all the eligible (Ph. Ds, M. Phils and N. E T. or equivalent tests qualified) to written screening test(s). 4. Ds, M. Phils and N. E T. or equivalent tests qualified) to written screening test(s). 4. All the petitioners in the above writ petitions except the writ petitioners in C W P No 1784/95, have qualified the National Eligibility Test for lecturership conducted by the U. G. C. The petitioners in the writ petition No 1784/95 are also qualified in view of the subsequent advertisement of the Public Service Commission, as they have obtained Ph. D/M. Phil degrees. 5. The Public Service Commission pursuant to the third advertisement called all the writ petitioners to appear in a screening test The petitioners have appeared in the said screening test, but could not come in the zone of consideration. Hence, the present writ petitions 6. The petitioners have challenged holding of screening test and further for direction to the respondents to call the petitioners for viva voce test by the Public Service Commission 7. At the admission stage, we heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, 8. The question is whether the action of Public Service Commission is legal in holding the screening test as all the petitioners are otherwise qualified for appearing in the interview as per Eligibility Clause of the advertisement, as quoted above. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have urged that in view of the above Eligibility Clause, they have got a vested right to appear in the viva voce test, though they have failed in the screening test. In this regard, attention of this Court to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been drawn. The said decision was rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 1363 of <9955 Dr. (Mrs.) Mary Parmar v H P. Public Service Commission and another We have perused the said judgment and we find that no law was laid down. That apart, the petitioner in the above writ petition did not appear in the screening test. Bat in the cases in hand, all the petitioners appeared and failed. If they had any grievance regarding holding of screening test, they ought to have approached this Court before they appeared in the said screening test. That apart, the petitioner in the above writ petition did not appear in the screening test. Bat in the cases in hand, all the petitioners appeared and failed. If they had any grievance regarding holding of screening test, they ought to have approached this Court before they appeared in the said screening test. That apart, in the above writ petition, namely, C. W. P. No 1363/95, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the Public Service Commission can hold screening test for short listing the number of candidates. 10 The question came up before the apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, (1994) 6 SCC 293. The ratio laid down in that case may be summarised as follows It was held that where the selection is to be made purely on the 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 Commission or the Selection Board has no option but to short-list such applicants on some rational and reasonable basis. The sole purpose of holding interview is to search and select the best among the applicants, and it may not be possible to carry out a satisfactory viva vace test if large number of candidates are interviewed on each day till all the applicants who had been found to be eligible on the basis of criteria and qualifications prescribed are interviewed As such, interview is bound to be casual and superficial because of the time constraint and the members of the Commission shall not be in a position to assess properly the candidates who appeared before them for interview. It was also held that the process of short listing shall not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria given in statutory rules or prospectus and in substance and reality, the process of short listing is a part of process of selection. The apex Court observed that in most of the services, screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the number of the candidates who have to be celled for interview. 11. The apex Court observed that in most of the services, screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the number of the candidates who have to be celled for interview. 11. In view of the above ratio laid down by the apex Court we have no hesitation in holding that the screening test is a part of process of selection and in other words before calling the eligible candidates for vivo voce test, the Commission has got the right to hold screening test or written test for short listing the number of candidates, if the applicants are large in number. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that by holding the first test by the Commission for the persons who are not otherwise qualified under the eligibility criteria, large number of candidates have been selected and they are eligible for selection and thereby the prospect of the present petitioners have been reduced. It has also been urged that the above test conducted by the Public Service Commission was not in accordance with the guidelines given by the U. G C and, there-fore, records may be called for to examine this point. In support of the prayer for calling the records, reliance has been placed on a decision of the apex Court in The State of Bihar and another v. Asis Kumar Mukherjee and others, AIR 1975 SC 192. 13. The power of this Court calling for the records cannot be disputed but before calling for the records, as prayed for by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court must prima facie be satisfied that the first test for finding out the eligible candidates was not properly done. The Public Service Commission is a Constitutional authority and we cannot without any material on the record come to the finding that the test was not properly conducted. Therefore, this contention is rejected. 14. The Public Service Commission is a Constitutional authority and we cannot without any material on the record come to the finding that the test was not properly conducted. Therefore, this contention is rejected. 14. Another submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that the earlier decision of this Court in C. W. P. No. 1363/95 if not followed, there will be conflict and it will amount to illegality and in support have placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court in Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1987 SC 1345 We have already held that the facts of the above petition are different and that apart in that decision the Division Bench already held that the Public Service Commission can hold screening test. 15. The learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission submitted that large number of candidates are to be called for interview and, therefore, screening test is necessary. A statement has been furnished to us showing the number of posts, number of eligible candidates and number of candidates required to be called for interview. We find that number of eligible candidates in the subject of Hindi and Physical Education are 461 and 64, respectively. We further find that for the subject of Chemistry there are 11 posts and as per norms of the Public Service Commission, 48 candidates are to be interviewed. From the said statement, it appears that for this subject, 354 candidates are eligible. Therefore, this figure justifies the decision of the Public Service Commission to hold screening test for short listing the number of candidates to be called for viva voce test. 16. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petitions and accordingly all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.