JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 15-2-96, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner's case was not considered by the respondent No. 2 the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, for the post of Mines Foreman Grade I in the Mining Department. 2. The respondents have filed reply stating that petitioner was eliminated by process of short-listing and, thus, he was not called for interview. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the post of Mines Foreman, the requisite qualification was Post Graduation in Geology or Degree or Diploma in Engineering in Mines from Indian School of Mines and Applied Geology, Dhanbad or any qualification equivalent thereto; and while short-listing, the respondent No. 2 the Commission, has considered the marks obtained by the candidates even in High School, Intermediate and B.Sc. etc. though the case ought to have been considered only on the basis of the requisite qualification, the Master's Degree in Geology or Degree or Diploma in Mines and, thus, the process adopted by the Commission for short- listing was unwarranted and illegal. 3. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent - Commission, has submitted that in order to have the overall assessment by considering the performance of a candidate in his academic cannot be termed as arbitrary and, thus, there was no illegality in short-listing the petitioner. 4. It is well settled preposition of law that mere possession of minimum qualification does not entitle a person to be called for interview. The issue of short-listing is no more res-integra. It had been considered by the Hon'ble Apex court in M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar, AIR 1995 SC 77 , wherein the Apex Court observed as under (paras 6 and 8):- "The Selection Board or the Commission has to decide as to what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidates amongst the applicants. In most of the services screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the number of candidates who have to he called for interview......... But where the selection is to be made only on the basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. But where the selection is to be made only on the basis of interview, the Commission 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 Court from time to time that where selections are to be made only on the basis of interview, then such interview/viva voice tests must be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of the candidate....... It is obvious that it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voice 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 number 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 constraint. The members of the Commission shall not be in a position to assess properly the candidates who appear before them for interview." 5. In fact short-listing does not change the statutory criteria by administrative order or action, rather where the selection is to be made purely on the basis of interview, if the applicants for such posts are enormous with reference to the number of posts available to be filled-up then the Commission had no option but to short-list such applicants on some rational or reasonable basis. 6. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip Kumar, (1993) 2 SCC 310 : 1993 AIR SCW 848 . In Union of India v. T. Sundravaman, (1997) 4 SCC 664 : 1997 Lab IC 2342 , the Apex Court considered, approved and followed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navnit Kumar Potdar ( AIR 1995 SC 77 ) and P. Dilip Kumar (1993 AIR SCW 848) (supra) and held that it was always open to the Recruiting Agency to screen candidates due for consideration at the thresh-hold of the process of selection by prescribing higher eligibility/qualification so that the field of selection can be narrowed-down with the ultimate object o fairness and reasonableness. 7. The only requirement under the law is that the process adopted in short-listing should be legitimate. 7. The only requirement under the law is that the process adopted in short-listing should be legitimate. In the instant case, it cannot be held that the respondent-Commission had adopted the procedure which can be termed as arbitrary, illegal or not fair and legitimate. To assess the suitability of a candidate by considering his overall academic performance, cannot be said to be unwarranted or unreasonable. 8. I find no force in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******