Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 141 (HP)

RAJESH HAMDARD v. STATE OF H. P.

2002-05-22

A.K.GOEL, W.A.SHISHAK

body2002
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Petitioner has challenged the action of respondent No. 2 whereby he was not called for interview to the post of Lecturer Computer Science and Engineering that was advertised by the said respondent vide notice published in "The Tribune" dated 30th August, 2001 vide Annexure P/6. 2. Case as set-up by the petitioner in this writ petition is that he was eligible for being considered for the said post as he fulfilled the minimum required qualification. Action of the respondents in not calling the petitioner for interview, according to learned Counsel is not only illegal, but is arbitrary and unjust, thus violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and may be declared as such. With a view to support his this submission, Mr. Maniktala submitted that his client had a vested right for being called for interview as well as of consideration being eligible for the post in question. Short listing was wrongly done by respondent No. 2 after receipt of applications because this was not permitted by rules nor was so stated in the advertisement. There being no provision in rules and no mention in the advertisement, petitioner ought to have been called. Thus he has prayed for allowing this writ petition. 3. When put to notice, it was urged on behalf of respondent No. 2 that so far short listing is concerned, it is nothing new or unknown keeping in view the fact that well qualified and better professional in the subject are engaged for imparting education to the students. In addition to this short listing/screening is acknowledged where the number of applicants is large. He fairly stated that it does not have to be arbitrary. He further pointed out that interview in question stands cancelled and further petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Besides this, stand of respondent No. 2 is that in response to advertisement, Annexure P-6, as many as 32 candidates had applied. Screening committee after examining all the applications, recommended six candidates to be called for interview who all are possessing higher qualification in Computer Science and Engineering. Thus according to him short listing/screening process as has been undertaken by respondent No. 2 needs to be upheld. Recommendations made by the committee in that behalf are reflected in Annexure R-2 placed on record. 4. Thus according to him short listing/screening process as has been undertaken by respondent No. 2 needs to be upheld. Recommendations made by the committee in that behalf are reflected in Annexure R-2 placed on record. 4. So far question of short listing is concerned, it is a normal and routine exercise accepted by courts from time to time. Idea is to limit the number of applicants where large number of applications are received and at the same time to ensure that the people with better academic credentials are brought in. 5. A Division Bench of this court while examining the correctness of process of screening upheld the same in the case of Seema Sharma and another v. District and Sessions Judge and another, 2001 (3) S.L.C 285. What was held and is relevant for the purposes of present writ petition is extracted hereinbelow:— "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 fudge, 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. The last decision relied upon by the petitioners was in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District and Sessions fudge, 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 cannot 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." 6. In Mohd. 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." 6. In Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and others, (2000) 2 SCC 606, it was held as under:— "13. Laying of criteria when there are a large number of candidates is permissible but that criteria must be reasonable and not arbitrary having regard to the post for which recruitment is made." 7. To similar effect are the decisions in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dalip Kumar and another, (1993) 2 SCC 310; Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, (1994) 6 SCC 293. 8. With a view to support petitioners case, Mr. Maniktala referred to NT. Devin Katti and others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others, (1990) 3 SCC 157, and submitted that his client has got a right of consideration. In this case after the selection process was in pipe line, rules were amended during the pendency of such process. Supreme Court held that service rules or Government orders are applicable prospectively unless indicated to the contrary by express language or by necessary implication. In these circumstances orders were passed by the Supreme Court. Admittedly that is not the situation in the present case as question relating to short listing was not gone into by the Supreme Court, as such no benefit can be derived from this decision by the petitioner. 9. Decision relied upon in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dalip Kumar and another, (1993) 2 SCC 310, also does not advance the case of the petitioner in any manner. In this case High Court of Andhra Pradesh had interpreted Rule 4 of Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules, 1966 by taking a particular view. When the matter was taken up before the Administrative Tribunal it did not follow decision of the High Court. In this background while allowing the appeal of the State, Supreme Court held that Tribunal ought not to have taken a contrary view when High Court had already given an interpretation which was otherwise justified. When the matter was taken up before the Administrative Tribunal it did not follow decision of the High Court. In this background while allowing the appeal of the State, Supreme Court held that Tribunal ought not to have taken a contrary view when High Court had already given an interpretation which was otherwise justified. Similarly, reliance placed on the decision in Choudhary Goutam Kumar Saran v. Director of Sports and Youth Services, Orissa and others, is also ill-founded. Reason being what criteria the respondent No. 2 should have followed is a matter to be determined by it. Only thing that needs to be seen by this court and admitted on its behalf is that the criteria followed should be reasonable and rational and it should also be not unreasonable and unjust. By no stretch of imagination the process of short listing can be said to be either arbitrary or illegal muchless unjust in the matter of public employment by a limb of welfare state like respondent No. 2. In the face of above discussion while upholding the criteria of short listing of candidates to six on the basis of their higher educational qualification, we are satisfied that such criteria suffer from no illegality. 10. A plea urged by Mr. Sood that selection pursuant to the advertisement in question stands cancelled, therefore, writ has become infructuous has not been gone into in view of the fact that we have dealt with the matter on merits. 11. This writ petition was formally admitted and was heard finally on the joint request of the learned Counsel for the parties, keeping in view the controversy involved in it. 12. No other point is urged. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.