Judgment :- (Petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the proceedings of the first respondent in O.A. No.1045/97 dated 4-11-1999 and quash the said orders of the first respondent dated 4-11-1999 and consequently direct the respondents to interview the petitioners and consider the candidature for appointment to the post of Joint Director (Agriculture); Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in O.A. No.388 of 1999 dated 23-6-2000 in so far as it relates to the direction issued to the petitioner to consider the case of the second respondent to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Government of Pondicherry is concerned and quash the same; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the fourth respondent in O.A. No.578/2001 dated 23-7-2001, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to set aside the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Deputy Director (Agriculture) and make a fresh appointment on merits from among the other eligible, short listed and interviewed candidates in accordance with law, respectively.) Common Order: Elipe Dharma Rao, J. On the requisition given by the Government of Pondicherry for filling up the two unreserved posts of Joint Director/Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department of Government of Pondicherry through direct recruitment, the Union Public Service Commission (in short UPSC) issued a public notification dated 23-5-1998 inviting applications from the eligible candidates. The notification prescribed the essential qualifications, viz. EQ(A):M.Sc. Degree in Agriculture from a recognised University or equivalent and EQ(B):Three years'/Two years' experience in Extension Work/Soil/Input Analysis. 2. In response to the said notification, Agriculture Officers working in the Agriculture Department of the Government of Pondicherry, submitted their applications for the post of Joint/Deputy Director (Agriculture) and were expecting the call letters for the interview. On coming to know that some of their junior colleagues have received the call letter for the interview scheduled on 13-10-1997 and that their applications were rejected by the UPSC in the process of shortlisting of the candidates to be called for the interview for the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture), they approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1045 of 1997, seeking the relief to direct the UPSC to include their names for the interview, to interview them and to prepare the select list on the basis of such interview. They also sought for the interim relief directing the UPSC not to publish the results of the interview and not to make any appointments on the basis of the above interview. 3. The said original application was admitted by the Tribunal on 13-10-1997. The Tribunal also passed an interim order permitting the interview process to go on, but not to publish the results until further orders of the Tribunal. 4. One B. Ramakichennin @ Balagandhi, who is working as Agriculture Officer in the Agriculture Department, Government of Pondicherry and also one of the original applicants in O.A. No.1045 of 1997, filed O.A. No.388 of 1999 on 28-4-1999, seeking the relief of direction to consider him for selection to the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department, Pondicherry and to appoint him in the said post. He also prayed for an interim relief directing the UPSC to permit him to attend the interview for the above said post. 5. The said original application was entertained by the Tribunal on 11-5-1999 and on 18-5-1999 interim orders were also passed directing the UPSC to permit the original applicant to attend the interview, but the result need not be announced. The original applicant was interviewed on 27-5-1999 along with the other candidates, but the result of the interview was not declared. 7. In both the above said original applications, UPSC filed reply statement. In their reply statements, UPSC has justified the shortlisting of the candidates to be called for the interview by stating that since the applications received were numerous, the shortlisting of the candidates to be called for the interview became inevitable and, therefore, it was decided that the essential qualification under EQ(B), i.e. three years/two years' experience in extension work/soil/input analysis was to be counted after the candidate has acquired the qualification under EQ(A), i.e., M.Sc. Degree in Agriculture. Since all the original applicants did not fulfil the essential qualification under EQ(B), they were not called for the interview. It was further submitted that in case of the original applicant in O.A. No.388 of 1999 though the applicant was categorised as lacking the essential qualification under EQ(B), in compliance of the interim order dated 18-5-1999 passed by the Tribunal, he was interviewed on 27-5-1999, but the result of the interview was not published. 8. It was further submitted that in case of the original applicant in O.A. No.388 of 1999 though the applicant was categorised as lacking the essential qualification under EQ(B), in compliance of the interim order dated 18-5-1999 passed by the Tribunal, he was interviewed on 27-5-1999, but the result of the interview was not published. 8. The Tribunal, by order dated 4-11-1999, upheld the procedure adopted by the UPSC for shortlisting the number of candidates to be called for the interview and dismissed the O.A. No.1045 of 1997. Aggrieved, two of the original applicants in O.A. No.1045 of 1997 have filed W.P. No.9521 of 2000. 9. In so far as O.A. No.388 of 1999 filed by B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi was concerned, the Tribunal, without going into the merits of the issue, by order dated 23-6-2000, disposed of the original application by observing that nothing survives for adjudication and permitted the UPSC to publish the results of the interview which was withheld due to the interim orders passed by the Tribunal in the said original application. 10. Challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, UPSC filed W.P. No.18563 of 2000. According to UPSC the by passing such an order, the Tribunal has virtually granted relief to the original applicant without examining the shortlisting criteria followed by them or without finding any infirmity or illegality in the procedure adopted by them. This Court while admitting the said writ petition, passed an interim order on 7-11-2000 permitting the declaration of the result, but if the result so declared will be subject to the result of the writ petition. 11. In deference to the order dated 23-6-2000 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.388 of 1999 and the interim order dated 7-11-2000 passed by this Court in W.P. No.26859 of 2000, UPSC published the results of the interview, recommending the name of B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi for provisional selection and appointment to the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture), Government of Pondicherry. The UPSC also by their letter dated 22-1-2001 informed the recommended candidate. Based on the recommendation of UPSC, the Government of Pondicherry issued an order dated 23-3-2001 appointing B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi as Deputy Director of Agriculture (Chemistry) with effect from 22-3-2001 and also issued a notification in the official gazette on 10-4-2001. 12. The UPSC also by their letter dated 22-1-2001 informed the recommended candidate. Based on the recommendation of UPSC, the Government of Pondicherry issued an order dated 23-3-2001 appointing B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi as Deputy Director of Agriculture (Chemistry) with effect from 22-3-2001 and also issued a notification in the official gazette on 10-4-2001. 12. One S. Sezhian Babu, whose application was also rejected by the UPSC in the shortlisting process, filed O.A. No.578 of 2001 before the Tribunal, challenging the selection and appointment of B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi. 13. Since the issue whether Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi is eligible to be appointed as Deputy Director (Agriculture) is pending adjudication before the High Court in the writ petition (W.P. No.18563 of 2000) filed by the UPSC, the Tribunal, by its order dated 23-7-2001, dismissed the O.A. No.578 of 2001. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Sezhian Babu filed W.P. No.21870 of 2001. 14. On the backdrop of the above stated facts and in the light of the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, the issues that arise for consideration in the writ petitions are: 1.Whether the procedure adopted by the UPSC for shortlisting the candidates to be called for the interview is valid? 2.Whether the provisional recommendation made by the UPSC to the Government of Pondicherry and the consequential order issued by the Government of Pondicherry provisionally appointing B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi as Deputy Director (Agriculture) are sustainable? 15. As seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, on the requisition made by the Government of Pondicherry for filling up two unreserved posts of Joint/Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department through direct recruitment, a public notification was issued on 23-5-1998, with the closing date of 11-6-1998. The qualifications prescribed for the said post are: 1.EQ(A) : M.Sc. Degree from a recognised University or equivalent; and 2.EQ(B) : Three years experience in Extension Work/Soil/Input Analysis 16. In response to the notification, 128 applications were received, including that of the parties herein. Finding that the response being substantial, shortlisting of the candidates became inevitable and as per the rules and regulations, the UPSC adopted the shortlisting to restrict the number of candidates to be called for the interview. In response to the notification, 128 applications were received, including that of the parties herein. Finding that the response being substantial, shortlisting of the candidates became inevitable and as per the rules and regulations, the UPSC adopted the shortlisting to restrict the number of candidates to be called for the interview. Therefore, for the purpose of shortlisting, the experience gained by the candidates as required in EQ(B) was to be counted after the candidate as acquired the qualification under EQ(A) and this principle was adopted uniformly for all the applicants. 17. The second respondent in W.P. No.18563 of 2000, who was also one of the applicants to the said post, though having the qualification under EQ(A), but on the crucial date for determining the eligibility criteria did not possess the qualification prescribed under EQ(B). Therefore, in the shortlisting process his name was excluded and he was not called for the interview. Aggrieved, he filed O.A. No.388 of 1999 before the Tribunal seeking the relief of direction to consider his case for selection to the said post and to appoint him. 18. A detailed counter-affidavit was filed by the UPSC. However, the Tribunal has passed an interim order dated 18-5-1999 directing the respondents therein to permit him to attend the interview and also not to announce the results of the interview which shall be subject to the result of the original application. In compliance of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the UPSC without prejudice to their contentions in the original application, permitted the second respondent to take part in the interview and accordingly he was interviewed on 27-5-1999 and as directed by the Tribunal, the results were not published. 19. Thereafter, the Tribunal, by order dated 23-6-2000, without going into the merits of the claim of the second respondent, disposed of the main original application itself by passing the following order: "... we are of the view that nothing remains to be considered in the main application. As the applicant has already been interviewed in pursuance of the interim orders of this Tribunal, the applicant's case has been considered for the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture), Agriculture Department, Pondicherry. We do not think that any further direction is called for in this application. As the applicant has already been interviewed in pursuance of the interim orders of this Tribunal, the applicant's case has been considered for the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture), Agriculture Department, Pondicherry. We do not think that any further direction is called for in this application. Surely, we cannot direct the official respondents to appoint the applicant and it is for the official respondents to consider the case of the applicant for the above said post. As stated already, the applicant case has been considered and he was interviewed on 27-5-1999. Hence, we are of the view that nothing remains in this application and it is accordingly dismissed.: Here it is to be considered that when once the second respondent is found to be not having the qualification prescribed under EQ(B) and his name was excluded in the the shortlisting method adopted by the UPSC in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations and when the second respondent has approached the Tribunal and obtained the interim order to permit him to attend the interview subject to the finalisation of the eligibility of the second respondent for appointment to the said post, he should have obtained an order from the Tribunal with regard to his eligibility to be appointed in the said post. The Tribunal should have also gone into the issue of the eligibility of the second respondent as the main issue and instead of doing so, the second respondent was satisfied with the interim order passed by the Tribunal without inviting any final order from the Tribunal on his original application. The Tribunal disposed of the original application directing the UPSC to publish the result. Aggrieved, UPSC has filed the above writ petition. 20. A Division Bench of this Court, while admitting the writ petition filed by the UPSC, passed the following interim order on 7-11-2000: "Counsel submits that the second respondent was not eligible for consideration. However, his case was considered and he was called for the interview as per the interim order of the Tribunal. But the Tribunal without deciding the issue dismissed the original application as nothing survives and directed the petitioner to declare the results. As a matter of fact, the second respondent is not at all eligible. Heard. The petitioner may declare the result, but the result, if so declared, will be subject to the result of the writ petition. But the Tribunal without deciding the issue dismissed the original application as nothing survives and directed the petitioner to declare the results. As a matter of fact, the second respondent is not at all eligible. Heard. The petitioner may declare the result, but the result, if so declared, will be subject to the result of the writ petition. Notice." Therefore, as seen from the above order, the declaration of the result will be subject to the result of the writ petition. 21. The petitioner (UPSC) instead of seeking an order from the Division Bench to take further action after the declaration of the result, made a recommendation to the Government of Pondicherry for the provisional appointment of the second respondent to the said post. Based on the recommendation made by the UPSC, the Government of Pondicherry issued an order dated 23—3-2001 appointing the second respondent as Deputy Director (Agriculture) with effect from 22-3-2001 and also issued a notification in the official gazette on 10-4-2000. 22. In the meanwhile one Sezhian Babu, petitioner in W.P. No.21870 of 2001, whose application was also rejected in the shortlisting procedure adopted by the UPSC filed O.A. No.578 of 2001 before the Tribunal challenging the selection and appointment of the second respondent. The Tribunal dismissed this original application on the ground that the writ petition (W.P. No.18563 of 2000) challenging the appointment of the second respondent was pending before this Court. 23. With regard to the short-listing procedure adopted by the UPSC, considering the fact that the response to the notification was enormous, it is open to the UPSC under the relevant rules and regulations to restrict the number of candidates to be called for the interview by adopting the shortlisting method. Under the relevant rules and regulation, the UPSC has got powers to adopt such short-listing method considering the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, for the purpose of shortlisting the UPSC prescribed that the period of experience prescribed under EQ(B) should be counted from the date when the candidate has acquired the qualification under EQ(A). We see no irrational or illegality in prescribing such qualification for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates to be called for the interview. 24. In the present case, for the purpose of shortlisting the UPSC prescribed that the period of experience prescribed under EQ(B) should be counted from the date when the candidate has acquired the qualification under EQ(A). We see no irrational or illegality in prescribing such qualification for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates to be called for the interview. 24. As could be seen from the averments made in O.A. No.388 of 1999, the said original application was filed when the notification dated 23-5-1998 was issued calling for the applications for the two posts of Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department Pondicherry and in response to the said notification, the second respondent herein submitted his application along with all testimonials in time, but has not received any call letters for the interview, while call letters were sent other applicants. Apprehending that no call letters would be sent to him since the second respondent had already applied to the higher post of Joint Director of Agriculture as per the notification issued by the UPSC previously and in that case also the second respondent and some other candidates were not called for the interview and so the second respondent along with the other similarly placed persons approached the Tribunal with O.A. No.1045 of 1997 in which direction was given not to publish the results. In that case the second respondent was not called to interview because UPSC has taken the stand that the qualification or experience is to be obtained after the acquisition of essential qualification. Therefore, apprehending for the present post he would not be called for the interview on the same justification, the second respondent was constrained to approach the Tribunal contending that if the qualification of experience is to be acquired subsequent to the acquisition of essential qualification, the same ought to have been specified in the notification itself as was done in the case of filling up of the post of Senior Specialist in the Health Department through advertisement No.7 dated 10-4-1998, but in the impugned notification there is no such specification has been prescribed. Hence, it was submitted that in the absence of any such specific requirement of acquisition of qualification of experience subsequent to the acquisition of essential educational qualification, he is entitled to get interviewed by the UPSC and to get selected. 25. Hence, it was submitted that in the absence of any such specific requirement of acquisition of qualification of experience subsequent to the acquisition of essential educational qualification, he is entitled to get interviewed by the UPSC and to get selected. 25. If that is the main contention raised in the said original application though the second respondent has appeared for the interview by virtue of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, should have invited a judgment from the Tribunal with regard to the second qualification of experience under EQ(B), but he did not do so and satisfied with the interim direction passed by the Tribunal allowing him to attend the interview. Unless and until his eligibility is not decided by the Tribunal with regard to the experience prescribed under EQ(B), though he was permitted to appear for the interview, he is not entitled to be appointed to the said post. Therefore, neither the second respondent nor the Tribunal has shown any interest to settle the eligibility of the second respondent under EQ(B). More over, when the UPSC itself has filed the writ petition against the interim direction passed by the Tribunal permitting the second respondent to appear for the interview and in the said writ petition the Division Bench passed an interim order directing the publication of the result, which shall however be subject to the result of the writ petition, the UPSC after declaring the results should have obtained an order from the High Court in the said writ petition to appoint the candidate who secured more marks in the interview. Instead of doing that, UPSC on their own have recommended the name of the second respondent to the Government of Pondicherry for being appointed to the said post. On overall consideration of the facts of the case, when the eligibility of the second respondent under the qualification EQ(B) has not been settled by the Tribunal in the original application, that cannot be considered and decided in the writ petition. As has been held by the Supreme Court in L. CHANDRAKUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA, this Court has got jurisdiction of judicial review of the order passed by the Tribunal under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of India. When there is no decision from the Tribunal on an issue, the question of reviewing the decision of the Tribunal does not arise at all. When there is no decision from the Tribunal on an issue, the question of reviewing the decision of the Tribunal does not arise at all. Therefore, as it was held by the Tribunal that short-listing procedure adopted by the UPSC is valid, the second respondent is not entitled to be appointed in the said post unless and until he obtained an order from the Tribunal on the main question of his eligibility under EQ(B). When there is no order from the Tribunal on this issue, the question of considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the second respondent is having the qualification under EQ(B) based on the authorities relied on by him cannot be considered. The second respondent should have, based on the authorities relied on by him, invited a finding from the Tribunal itself on this issue instead of getting the original application filed by him getting dismissed. 26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the recommendation of the UPSC vide their letter dated 22-1-2001 to appoint the second respondent as Depurty Director (Agriculture) and the consequential order dated 23-3-2001 and the notification dated 10-4-2001 issued by the Government of Pondicherry appointing the second respondent in the said post are illegal and unsustainable in law and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the said impugned orders and set aside the provisional appointment of the second respondent as Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department of Government of Pondicherry. We also quash the order dated 23-6-2000 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.388 of 1999. 27. In the result, W.P. No.18563 of 2000 is allowed, while W.P. Nos.21870 of 2001 and 9521 of 2000 are disposed of. No costs. After pronouncement of the order, Shri R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.9521 of 2000 prays for suspension of our order enabling the petitioners to move the Supreme Court. Permission granted. The above order is suspended for a period of four weeks from today to enable the petitioners to move the appeal.