JUDGMENT 1. - Since identical controversy has been involved herein, hence both the petitions were heard together at joint request, and are being decided by present order. 2. By way of these petitions, petitioners jointly assailed advertisement dated 18th August, 2008 by which process was initiated by respondents, holding selection for the post of Supervisor (Female). 3. Counsel submits that interview process has been initiated, but the petitioners despite being eligible, have not been called for interview. As per their own saying, criteria has been adopted by respondents for short-listing; and indisputably, they do not fall in the criteria of short-listing laid down by respondents for calling eligible applicants for interview. 4. Counsel submits that once petitioners are eligible, and in the absence of a condition of short-listing being incorporated in the advertisement dated 18/08/08 they have a legitimate right for being called for interview and participate in the process initiated by respondents.5-6. In opinion of this Court the submission is without substance for the reason that the post of Supervisor is included in the Schedule-II appended to Rajasthan Women & Child Development (State & Subordinate) Service Rules, 1998 ("Rules, 1998") for being filled by direct recruitment in terms of procedure provided under Part IV of the Rules, 1998 and after scrutiny of applications U/r 23, the Commission or Authority may take decision to call eligible applicants for interview. As regards submission made that in absence of a condition of short-listing being incorporated in the advertisement, the short-listing could not have been adopted by respondents, the Apex Court in MP Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kr. Potdar, ( 1994(6) SCC 293 ) held ad infra: "13. ... As we have already pointed out 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." which has further been considered by Apex Court in B. Rama Kichennin v. Union of India , B. Ramakichennin v. Union of India, 2008 (1) SCC 362 ) , and observed ad infra: "16. Even if there is no rule providing for short-listing nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the Selection Body can resort to a short-listing procedure if there are a large number of eligible candidates who apply and it is not possible for the authority to interview all of them. For example, if for one or two posts there are more than 1000 applications received from eligible candidates, it may not be possible to interview all of them. In this situation, the procedure of short-listing can be resorted to by the Selection Body, even though there is no mention of short-listing in the rules or in the advertisement." Thus viewed, Apex Court has consistently taken the view that whenever post is to be filled up on the basis of interview and if large number of eligible candidates have applied for, it would certainly not be possible for the authority to call all the eligible applicants for interview, and some rational procedure has to be adopted by which eligible candidates can be short listed for ultimately being called for interview.7. It is also settled that even if there is no rule or reference in the advertisement, for short listing yet in case of large number of eligible candidates having applied for, some rational criteria in short listing eligible applicants is permissible by Judge-made law. However, whenever short listing procedure has to be adopted it must be based on rational and reasonable criteria and merely because petitioners are eligible and submitted their applications pursuant to advertisement, will not confer an indefeasible right for being called to participate in process of selection.8. In the instant case, the petitioners have not challenged the criteria adopted by the respondents for short-listing of candidates. Their grievance is that they being eligible, have legitimate right to be called for interview. Mere submission of application does not confer any right and if petitioners do not fall in the criteria adopted by respondents for calling candidates for interview after short-listing, it cannot be said that their legal rights are being infringed under Rules, 1998.9. Consequently, both the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******