DEEPAK SANTRAM BHOI Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these two writ petitions are applicants for the post of Junior Clerks in Pune District Court in response to an advertisement dated 3rd October, 1996. The essential qualifications for the post were set out in the advertisement. As per the said notification, the applicant should not be less than 18 years on the date of the advertisement and should not be more than 30 years of age. The educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement was S.S.C. passed. So far as the typing experience is concerned, it was mentioned that the eligibility is of 30 W.P.M. as far as English typing is concerned and as far as Marathi typing is concerned, the advertisement states that persons who know Marathi typing will be preferred.

(2.) THE petitioners claim that they fulfil the eligibility criteria specified in the said advertisement. They, therefore, contend that they ought to have been called for the interview. Their common grievance is that though several other applicants have been called for the interview, they have not been called for the interview. They contend that once they fulfill the criteria specified in the notification, their applications could not be ignored or rejected nor can they be eliminated from the process of elimination without being subjected to an interview which is the only method specified for selection in the notification and that if other criteria had been applied for eliminating them such a process would be illegal as such criteria were neither notified nor intimated to the applicants. It is also contended that knowledge of Marathi typing was only a rule of preference and it was not a part of eligibility. It is contended that the selection of the persons who are to be called for the interview is made on the basis of certain Government Resolutions by which it is now provided that for the purpose of appointment to the post of Junior Clerks, the knowledge of Marathi typing is not only desirable but is essential. It is contended that the rule of selection cannot be arbitrarily and abruptly amended to the prejudice of the petitioners and, therefore, according to the petitioners the action of the authorities in not calling the petitioners for interview is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) IT is well settled that every eligible person is entitled to apply and to be considered for selection provided he specifies the prescribed qualifications. It is equally well settled that there is no obligation to call for interview all candidates, satisfying the minimum eligibility requirement. Where the number of applicants are high, unless the statute or the rule specifically provide otherwise, the number of candidates to be called for the interview, has necessarily to be in reasonable proportion to the number of vacancies to be filled in and all the candidates need not be called for interview. In the case of M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar (AIR 1995 SC 77), the Apex Court upheld the short-listing of candidates on some rational and reasonable basis. In that case, for the purpose of short-listing, the longer period of experience than the minimum prescribed was used as a criterion by the Public Service Commission for calling candidates for the interview. In the case of Government of A.P. vs. P. Dilip Kumar (1993 (2) SCC 310), the Apex Court held that it is always open to the recruiting agency to screen the candidates due for consideration at the threshold of the process of selection by prescribing higher eligibility qualification so that the field of selection can be narrowed down with the ultimate object of promoting candidates with higher qualification to enter the zone of consideration.