JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made the following prayers :
(a) to issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conclude the process of selection of Asstt. Mistress in General English in the Women's branch under subordinate Education (Trained Graduates Grade) Service in Government Girls Inter Colleges of the State of U. P. after holding interview on the basis of and taking into consideration the overall academic qualification, preferential qualification, her experiences in service of more than 4 years in Government Girls Inter College and her other preferential qualities and the performance of the petitioner in the interview held by the respondents ;
(b) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction including a writ to which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri Namwar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Sri Sanjeev Slngh ; and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner Smt. Malvika Singh is presently employed as Assistant Teacher/Mistress. English in Government Girls' Inter College. Nari Pachdevra. district Ghazipur. The respondent No. 1 published an advertisement on 23.5.1992 inviting applications for various posts of Teachers, including the post of Assistant Mistress/Teacher. General English, Women Branch. The essential qualifications for the post were Bachelor's Degree with English as a subject and L.T. Degree or Diploma in Education from a recognised University. The preferential qualification given in the advertisement were :
(a) certificate in Territorial Army format least 2 years period ;
(b) 'B' certificate of N.C.C. ;
(c) Teaching experience ; higher percentage of marks and higher qualifications other than the essential qualifications.
The petitioner, who is M.A. in English (Second Division) and B.A. (in First Division), having the Degree of Bachelor of Education and experience in teaching in English applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 28.5.1992. The petitioner also had the preferential qualification as she possessed 'B' and 'C' certificates of N.C.C. and has to her credit the experience of more than four years of teaching. Though the interview letters were issued to the other candidates who had applied for the post, the petitioner was not called for interview. On enquiries, she was given to understand that only those candidates who have secured a particular percentage of marks in Graduation have been called for interview and since the percentage of marks of the petitioner in B.A. is only 61.1%, which falls short of the percentage of the marks determined for calling the candidates for interview, she has been dropped. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is highly qualified, inasmuch as, she is M.A. in English with preferential qualification and her teaching experience is quite high to other candidates, who were called for interview. The action of the respondents in not calling the petitioner for interview as well as other policy decisions have been challenged as being discriminatory, arbitrary and mala fide.
4. Sri D. C. Sonkar, Section Officer of the U. P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission')-respondent No. 1 has filed a counter-affidavit, it has been made clear that a policy decision was taken that the candidates who shall be called for interview in the ratio of 1 : 4, i.e., as against one post, four candidates shall be interviewed : that the petitioner could not figure within the criteria laid down by the Commission, and, therefore, was not called for interview. According to the stand taken by the Commission, the percentage of marks of the petitioner was only 61.11% while all the candidates who were called for interview had higher percentage of marks.
5. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent-Commission has totally ignored the preferential qualification though the advertisement envisages that the preferential qualification shall be taken into consideration. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Dr. (Smt.) Swatantra Bala Sharma v. State of U. P., 1997 ALJ 1225. At the outset, it may be mentioned that a close study of the aforesaid ruling would make it clear that it instead of going in favour of the petitioner, goes against her. In that case, the only grievance, as is in the present case, was that the preferential qualifications have not been considered. The contention raised on behalf of Dr. Swatantra Bala Sharma in the case referred to above was negatived. The concept of preferential qualification simply means that where two selected candidates are on the same footing, i.e., they stand at par, the one. who has better preferential qualification should be preferred in the matter of appointment. The preferential qualifications cannot override the essential qualifications. The preferential qualifications are not meaningless. Due weightage is to be given to the preferential qualifications but the consideration of the preferential qualifications arises only when the two or more selected candidates are standing on the same pedestal. For example, if in one selection 'A' gets 100 marks and similarly 'B' and 'C also get the equal number of marks, the preferential qualifications shall be the determining factor for giving them appointment on a particular post. Moreover, the question of consideration of preferential qualifications arises not at the time of shortlisting of the candidates who may be called for interview but at the time of the final selection.
6. In the instant case, there were 2,776 candidates, who had applied for the post of Asstt. Teacher/Mistress English in the Women Branch. The Commission decided to shortlist the candidates. A policy decision was taken that as against one post, four candidates would be called for interview. The merit list of the general candidates was produced before this Court. The candidates upto serial number 165 were called for interview. The grand percentage of marks of the last candidate at serial number 165 is 67.37%. According to the merit, based on grand percentage of marks, the petitioner figures at serial number 291 and her grand percentage of marks is 61.11. Therefore, all those candidates who are below serial number 165 were not called for interview. However, the petitioner has appeared in the interview in pursuance of the interim directions issued by this Court. The result of final selection was also produced. Bandana Gupta with Control No. 0393 is the last candidate of general category who has been selected. She has received 71 marks and has been placed at serial number 33 of the list of successful candidates of general category. The marks received by the petitioner on interview are less than that of Bandana Gupta. On factual matrix, therefore, also, the petitioner has no case even though she was allowed to appear before the interview Board in pursuance of the orders of this Court.
7. Now the question is whether the Com mission-respondent No. 1 was justified in shortlisting the candidates who were 2,676 in number. Was it incumbent upon the Commission to have called all 2,676 candidates for interview? This is the question which is to be determined by this Court. The criteria of shortlisting has been approved by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. Without multiplying the decision on the point, suffice it to refer Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission u. Navneet Kumar Poddar and another, AIR 1995 SC 77. It was a case in which the process of shortlisting the candidates, who had applied for the post of Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was resorted to by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. It took a decision to call for interview only such candidates who had completed 7j years of practice instead of calling for interview all applicants who had put in 5 years of practice, which is the minimum requirement to make an applicant eligible to apply for the post. Raising the period from 5 years to 7 years practice for purpose of calling the candidates for interview did not, according to Supreme Court, amount to challenging the statutory criteria by an administrative decision. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that whenever applications are invited for recruitment to the different posts, certain basic qualifications and criteria are fixed and the applicants must possess those basic qualifications and criteria before their applications can be entertained for consideration. The Selection Board or the Commission has to decide as to what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidates amongst the applicants. In most of the services, screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the numbers of the candidates who have to be called for interview. Such screening tests or written tests have been provided in the concerned statutes or prospectus which govern the selection of the candidates. But where the selection is to be made only on 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. In another case in Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar and Others, AlR 1994 SC 141, the Supreme Court found that by giving equal weight to academic performance, the Commission had rather reduced the possibility of arbitrariness. Screening a candidate out of consideration at the threshold of the process of selection is neither illegal nor unconstitutional if a legitimate field demarcating the choice by reference to some rationale formula is carved out.
8. In the instant case, the Commission has adopted a very fair and reasonable criteria of shortlisting the candidates who had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher/Mistress English in Women's Branch by calling four applicants for interview as against one post. This criteria of shortlisting cannot be said to be unreasonable. It has been held in innumerable cases that Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution would be slow in interfering with the recommendations made by experts and would be extremely reluctant to substitute its own view as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to matters, which fall exclusively within the province of professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day selection process. It will be wholly wrong to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problem of the nature like the present one. In the matter of policy decisions, the Court should, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. In Swatantra Bala's case (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, it was held that normally Courts cannot substitute themselves in place of Selection Committee. Court's limited function is to check whether the process of selection has been violated or any unreasonableness has taken place in the selection process.
9. There is no allegation of mala fide against any one of the officers who were associated with the selection process. In the absence of allegation of mala fide, the selection process cannot be held to be tainted or in violation of the established norms and principles governing a particular selection. On the basis of the percentage of marks, the petitioner was not found eligible for being called for interview. No candidate, who has equivalent or less marks than that of the petitioner has been called for interview. The occasion of judging the merit of the petitioner, vis-a-vis other candidates who had applied for the post, with reference to preferential qualification had not arisen for one simple reason that the petitioner got eliminated on the basis of the policy decision that only candidates four times in number of the vacancies were called and the screening of the candidates called for interview was on merit, keeping in view the grand percentage of marks.
10. In the result, I find that the various grounds taken by the petitioner to challenge the selection process fail. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and substance and is accordingly dismissed.