JUDGMENT B. S. Chauhan, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to respondents to allow the petitioners to face the interview scheduled to be held on 12.9.2003.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent Banaras Hindu University has issued an Advertisement No. 1/2002-03 for large number of posts in different subjects including one post of Lecturer in Physical Education. It appears that large number of persons had applied for the said post in pursuance of the said advertisement. The respondents have issued interview letters only to six persons ignoring the claims of the petitioners. Hence, this petition.
3. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in order to maintain uniformity, the respondent-University should adopt the criteria, which is prevailing in all its departments. They cannot choose the criteria for selection unreasonably and arbitrarily depriving some applicants from their rights of being considered for the post and in other departments, all the applicants who had applied for the posts, have been issued interview letters but in department of Physical Education, only six candidates have been invited to face the interview. The action taken by the respondents is per se illegal and is liable to be quashed as it amounts to altering the criterion for selection prescribed in the Statute. Thus, this Court should issue directions to the respondents to allow the petitioners to face interview scheduled to be held tomorrow.
4. On the other hand, Shri V. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that being large number of candidates for only one post, the University had adopted the process of elimination and unless the criteria for short listing is held to be unreasonable or arbitrary, no Interference is called for in the matter. It has been submitted that the courts have accepted and approved the process of elimination by short listing where large number of candidates apply against the lesser number of vacancies. Thus, no interference is called for in the matter and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Better higher academic qualification, with a view to achieve better performance cannot be held to be violatlve of Articles 14/16 of the Constitution.
7. In M. P. Public Service Commission v. Navneet Kumar Potdar and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 77, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that process of short listing should be reasonable and rational and the selection process commences from short listing. The Court held as under :
".........The Selection Board or the Commission has to decide as what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidate amongst the applicants. In most of the Service, screening test or written tests have been introduced to limit the number of the candidates who have to be called for interview. Such screening tests or written tests have been provided in the concerned statute or prospectus which govern the selection of the candidates. But where the selection is to be made only on the basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview..... If large number of applicants are called for interview in respect of four posts, the interview is then bound to be casual and superficial because of the time constraints. The Members of the Commission shall not be in a position to assess properly the candidates who appeared before them for interview......... It is true that it has been found that some times the persons with lesser years of experience and practice have proved to be better advocates and they excel in profession. The success in profession is not linked with the years of practice.......... In any case this fixing the limit at seven and half years instead of five years of the practice for purpose of calling for interview, cannot be said to be irrational, arbitrary having no nexus with the object to select the best amongst the applicants ........... 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."
8. Process of short listing, thus, does not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria given in the statutory rules or prospectus. The Selection Committee may evolve any rational or reasonable basis, on which the list of the applicants can be short listed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the criteria of short listing on the basis of long experience than the experience required under the Statute.
9. In Union of India v. T. Sundararaman and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2418, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is always open to the recruiting agency to screen candidates due for consideration at the threshold of process of selection by prescribing higher eligibility/qualification so that the field of selection can be narrowed down. (But the advertisement in that case specifically provided that short listing would be made if applications are many).
10. In Mohammed Raizul Usman Gani and Ors. v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, (2000) 2 SCC 606, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered all the above referred judgments and held as under :
"Laying of criteria when there are 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."
11. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip Kumar and Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 310.
12. Shri V. K. Upadhyay has produced the documents relating to the criteria of short-listing duly approved by the learned Vice-Chancellor. We have examined the same microscopically and do not find any illegality nor it can be held that the criteria is unreasonable or arbitrary. Thus, it stands approved by the Court and no grievance can be raised so far as adopting the method of short-listing is concerned.
13. As to whether the present petitioners fall within the ambit of the criteria of short-listing adopted by the University and duly approved by the Vice-Chancellor, is a question of fact and Shri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that instead of going into the factual controversy, the matter may be referred to the learned Vice-Chancellor for his consideration. Mr. V. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents assured the Court that if the petitioners raise their grievances, the learned Vice-Chancellor shall examine as to whether either of them fall within the criteria adopted by the University and duly approved by him and in case, anyone of them falls, will be permitted to face interview.
14. In view of the statement made by Shri V. K. Upadhyay, no direction is required. Petitioners may approach the respondent No. 2 and in case either of the petitioners fall within the zone of consideration as per the criteria of short-listing duly approved by him, appropriate order shall be passed.
15. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.