JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C.J.—This petition is filed by two petitioners for an appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioners to appear in the interview /test for the post of clerk, class-Ill. 2. The case of the petitioners is that District Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, (respondent No. 1 hereinafter) notified five vacancies of clerks (class III), three in general category, one for SC and one for S.T. vide his letter dated August 23, 2000. Necessary and requisite qualifications for the appointment to the said post was Matriculation with second division. It was also stated in the advertisement that a candidate must be having age between 18 and 38 years. According to the petitioners, both of them were having necessary qualifications and thus they were eligible to appear for interview/test held for the appointment to class III posts and hence they ought to have been called for test/interview. Unfortunately, however, petitioners were not called for interview. The petitioners came to know that decision was taken by respondent No. 1 to short list the candidates, who were allowed to appear, which has resulted in prejudice to them. They have, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present petition for an appropriate direction to respondent No. 1 to consider them eligible, call for interview/test and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 3. After notice was issued, the respondents appeared. In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it was stated that requisite qualification was Matriculation with Second Division. It was further stated that when the applications were received, there were in all 1307 applications. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-reply, the details have been given, which read as under:— 1. Complete applications of Ma trie First Division including candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange. 1354-23=158 2. Complete applications of Matric 2nd Division including candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange. 381+169=550 3. Incomplete applications and applications of Matric 3rd Division and also without attested copies of Matric Certificates. 486 4. Applications received from candidates after due date. 113 Total 1307 4. It was also stated that there were only five posts out of which, three posts were for general candidates. Since Matriculate First Division candidates were also 158 (135+23), it was decided that only those candidates who had cleared Matriculation with First Division should be called for interview. 486 4. Applications received from candidates after due date. 113 Total 1307 4. It was also stated that there were only five posts out of which, three posts were for general candidates. Since Matriculate First Division candidates were also 158 (135+23), it was decided that only those candidates who had cleared Matriculation with First Division should be called for interview. Accordingly, as per the said decision, interview/ test was held. It was submitted that the action cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law. 5. Respondent No. 2, in his affidavit, stated that names were called from his office but the name of petitioner No. 1 was not sent as his name was registered with the said office on August 13, 1998, whereas on the basis of seniority list, the names registered upto June 27, 1998, were sent. Non sending of the name of petitioner No. 1, hence, could not be said to be illegal. So far as petitioner No. 2 was concerned, his name was not sent since he had not given his registration number. Non availability of registration number was the reason why his name could not be sent 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that action taken by respondent No. 1 was illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. For that he submitted that it was incumbent on respondent No. 1 to call all eligible candidates for interview /test. By not doing that, the 1st respondent had acted arbitrarily and committed illegality. It was also submitted that in other Districts, no such short listing was made. So called short listing was, therefore, illegal, unreasonable and unlawful. It was urged that there was legitimate expectation on the part of the petitioners that as they were eligible and would be called for interview/test and their cases would also be considered alongwith other eligible candidates. Since such action was not taken, it deserves to be set aside. 7. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, (1994) 6 SCC 293. We are afraid that the ratio laid down in that case would not help the petitioners. 7. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, (1994) 6 SCC 293. We are afraid that the ratio laid down in that case would not help the petitioners. In that case too, the Supreme Court held that once applications were received and the selection board applies its mind to evolve any rational basis on which applicants should be short listed. Such process should be reasonable. If the process adopted is not in consonance with law, it would be unlawful. Such decision cannot be said to be in consonance with law. Similarly, in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and others v. State of Orissa and others, 1995 (5) SLR 337 (SC), the Court held that the Selection Committee had no jurisdiction to evolve its own criteria for the criteria adopted under the Rules or Administrative Instructions. In that case, what was done by the Selection Committee was to give appointment only on the basis of the Character Roll. It was held to be arbitrary and unreasonable. The Last decision relied upon by the petitioners was in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others, (2000) 2 SCC. 606. Instead supporting the petitioners, it supports the respondents. Considering the earlier decision, the court held that zone of consideration can always be fixed by short listing large number of candidates. Only thing is that it should be permissible and must be based on reasonable basis and should not be arbitrary having regard to the post concerned. 8. In the instant case, in our opinion, when respondent No. 1 in the light of the fact that there were only three posts for general candidates and applications which were received were in four figures, a conscious reasonable and rational decision was taken that only those candidates who had passed Matriculation in First Division should be called for test/ interview, it cannot be said to be arbitrary and/or unreasonable. It also can not be said that there was legitimate expectations on the part of the petitioners to have considered their cases as short listing necessarily means that of all candidates would not be considered and cases of those candidates who fulfill the requisite qualifications falling within particular zone will be considered. It also can not be said that there was legitimate expectations on the part of the petitioners to have considered their cases as short listing necessarily means that of all candidates would not be considered and cases of those candidates who fulfill the requisite qualifications falling within particular zone will be considered. Two things, in our opinion, eligibility and requisite qualifications and/or the criteria which were required to be fulfilled are different and once a decision is held to be legal and valid, it cannot be interfered with. 9. Finally, our attention was invited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to the fact that as per notification of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 4th July, 1997, necessary qualifications have been laid down for recruitment. To recall, qualification and short-listing are two different things and it was permissible for respondent No. 1 to adopt short-listing, which was done by him. We find no objection against such action which could have been taken. In paragraph 6 of the rejoinder, it was contended that respondent No. 1 has changed the selection process and he had no jurisdiction to do so for selection. We are afraid, this contention is not well founded. Respondent No. 1 has not laid down any criteria. What was done was that considering the large number of candidates, he had merely taken an action of short listing which could have been taken by him and we do not find illegality therein. 10. For the above reasons, this petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged. No order as to costs. CMP No. 820 of 2001 11. No orders in view of the dismissal of the main matter.