- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
B. Ramakichenin Alias Balagandhi v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued an advertisement dated 23-5-1998 to fill the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture), Union Territory of Pondicherry, by direct recruitment. The essential qualifications stated were: (a) an M.Sc. degree in Agriculture from a recognised university and (b) two years’ experience in extension work/soil/input analysis. The advertisement did not say that the requisite two-year experience had to be obtained after acquiring the M.Sc.
The appellant possessed the experience, but had earned it before completing his M.Sc. UPSC, applying an internal short-listing criterion that insisted on two years’ post-M.Sc. experience, did not call him for interview. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai, in OA No. 1045 of 1997. By an interim order, CAT allowed him to be interviewed; in its final order of 23-6-2000 it directed UPSC merely to publish the results. The appellant ranked first and was appointed on 23-3-2001.
Several unsuccessful candidates challenged this appointment in W.P. Nos. 9521 & 18563 of 2000 and W.P. No. 21870 of 2001 before the Madras High Court. By judgment dated 19-9-2006, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the appellant’s appointment, reasoning that CAT had not examined his eligibility and that UPSC’s short-listing method was neither irrational nor illegal.
The appellant obtained special leave and filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether UPSC could validly short-list candidates by insisting that the two years’ experience be post-M.Sc. when the advertisement did not specify such a requirement.
- Whether the appellant’s appointment, made pursuant to CAT’s direction and after topping the merit list, should be upheld or annulled.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994) 6 SCC 293 | Short-listing of candidates is permissible when large numbers apply. | Cited to recognise that short-listing is generally valid if rational and objective. |
| Govt. of A.P. v. P. Dilip Kumar (1993) 2 SCC 310 | Authority may restrict the field of candidates through short-listing. | Referenced along with Navnit Kumar Potdar for the same principle. |
| Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 | Judicial restraint in reviewing administrative decisions. | Noted that normally courts would defer to rational administrative choices. |
| Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 | Executive authorities must adhere to standards they prescribe; deviation invalidates action. | Formed the core rationale: UPSC, having prescribed a particular short-listing method in Para 3.1 of its own advertisement, could not deviate from it. |
| Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab (1975) 3 SCC 503 | Affirmation of the above administrative-law principle. | Cited illustratively to reinforce the duty to follow self-imposed procedures. |
| Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975) 1 SCC 421 | Continuing recognition of the rule against arbitrary deviation from prescribed procedure. | Quoted as further authority for the same administrative-law proposition. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court accepted that short-listing is an accepted administrative device, but emphasised two conditions: (i) it must rest on a rational, objective basis, and (ii) where the advertisement or rules lay down a particular mode of short-listing, that mode alone can be used.
Paragraph 3.1 of the UPSC advertisement explicitly allowed the Commission to restrict candidates by stipulating higher qualifications or higher experience than the minimum prescribed. Requiring that the same two-year experience be only “after M.Sc.” did not amount to a higher qualification or higher experience; it merely altered the sequencing. Therefore, UPSC’s additional condition was outside the scope of Para 3.1.
Applying Ramana Dayaram Shetty, the Court held that an authority is “rigorously held” to the standards it publicly sets. Consequently, UPSC’s deviation rendered its short-listing process invalid. Because the appellant met the advertisement’s stated essentials and had been ranked first after CAT-mandated interview, his appointment was lawful.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed – High Court judgment set aside; appellant’s appointment as Deputy Director (Agriculture) upheld.
Immediate Effect: The appellant continues in office without interruption and with full validity.
Broader Implications: The decision reinforces that recruiting bodies must scrupulously follow the short-listing and eligibility parameters expressly stated in their advertisements; introducing unadvertised criteria, even if otherwise rational, is impermissible. No new doctrine was created, but the ruling strengthens existing administrative-law safeguards against arbitrary deviation.
Markandey Katju, J.— Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 19-9-2006 of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petitions Nos. 9521 and 18563 of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 21870 of 2001.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The appellant (Respondent 3 in the writ petition) applied for the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department, Government of Pondicherry. That post was to be filled up by direct recruitment in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter in short “UPSC”) dated 23-5-1998 inviting applications from eligible candidates.
5. The appellant states that he was fully qualified for the post, but he was not called for the interview although similarly placed candidates had been so called.
6. In this connection it may be mentioned that in the advertisement for the post issued by UPSC, essential qualifications mentioned therein were as follows:
“Essential:
A. Educational: MSc degree in Agriculture from a recognised university or institution.
B. Experience: Two years' experience in extension work/soil/input analysis.”
There was no mention in the advertisement that the experience of two years must be after obtaining MSc degree.
7. It appears that UPSC resorted to shortlisting and did not call the appellant for the interview because he did not have two years' experience in extension work/soil/input analysis after obtaining MSc degree in Agriculture. He no doubt had the requisite experience, but that was obtained before he got his MSc degree. UPSC called only those candidates for interview who had got the experience after getting the degree.
8. The appellant was of the view that there was no requirement that the two years' experience should be after obtaining the Master's degree in Agriculture. The appellant undoubtedly had such experience before obtaining his MSc degree in Agriculture.
9. Since the appellant was not called for the interview he filed OA No. 1045 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. By an interim order the Tribunal allowed the appellant to appear in the interview. Subsequently the Tribunal in its final order dated 23-6-2000 observed that since the appellant had been interviewed in pursuance of the interim order of the Tribunal, no further direction is required to be given in this connection and the result of the interview should be published. Accordingly the result was published and since the appellant was found first in the merit list, he was appointed as Deputy Director (Agriculture) on 23-3-2001 and has been working as such since then.
10. Aggrieved, writ petition was filed by the respondents herein before the Madras High Court which allowed the writ petition and quashed the appointment of the appellant. Hence this appeal by way of special leave petition.
11. One of the reason given by the High Court for setting aside the appellant's appointment was that the Tribunal should have gone into the question of eligibility of the appellant herein. Instead of doing so, it disposed of the OA filed before it by directing UPSC to publish the result. Accordingly, the appellant herein was appointed by the Government of Pondicherry vide order dated 23-3-2001 on the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture).
12. We need not go into the question whether the Tribunal should have decided the case on merits since we are deciding it on merits.
13. The High Court in the impugned judgment has also observed that it was open for UPSC to restrict the number of candidates to be called for the interview by adopting a shortlisting method. The High Court was of the view that there was no irrationality or illegality in the method of shortlisting adopted by UPSC. With respect, we cannot agree.
14. In Para 3.1 of the advertisement of UPSC dated 23-5-1998, it is stated:
“Where the number of applications received in response to an advertisement is large and it will not be convenient or possible for the Commission to interview all the candidates, the Commission may restrict the number of candidates to a reasonable limit on the basis of either qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or on the basis of the experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or on the basis of experience in the relevant field, or by holding a screening test. The candidate should, therefore, mention all the qualifications and experience in the relevant field over and above the minimum qualifications and should attach attested/self-certified copies of the certificates in support thereof.”
15. It is well settled that the method of shortlisting can be validly adopted by the selection body vide M.P Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994) 6 SCC 293, (1994) 28 ATC 286 (vide paras 6, 8, 9 and 13) and Govt. of A.P v. P. Dilip Kumar (1993) 2 SCC 310, (1993) 24 ATC 123.
16. Even if there is no rule providing for shortlisting nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the selection body can resort to a shortlisting 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 shortlisting can be resorted to by the selection body, even though there is no mention of shortlisting in the rules or in the advertisement.
17. However, for valid shortlisting there have to be two requirements — (i) it has to be on some rational and objective basis. For instance, if selection has to be done on some post for which the minimum essential requirement is a BSc degree, and if there are a large number of eligible applicants, the selection body can resort to shortlisting by prescribing certain minimum marks in BSc and only those who have got such marks may be called for the interview. This can be done even if the rule or advertisement does not mention that only those who have the aforementioned minimum marks, will be considered or appointed on the post. Thus the procedure of shortlisting is only a practical via media which has been followed by the courts in various decisions since otherwise there may be great difficulties for the selecting and appointing authorities as they may not be able to interview hundreds and thousands of eligible candidates; (ii) if a prescribed method of shortlisting has been mentioned in the rule or advertisement then that method alone has to be followed.
18. In the present case, no doubt, UPSC had resorted to an objective and rational criteria that only those who have two years' experience after getting MSc degree will be considered, while those who have got such experience but only before getting MSc degree will not be called for the interview. Ordinarily we would not have taken exception to this procedure since it is based on an objective criteria, and ordinarily this Court does not interfere with administrative decisions vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, AIR 1996 SC 11. As observed in the said decision, the modern approach is for courts to observe restraint in administrative matters.
19. Hence, if the method of shortlisting had not been prescribed by UPSC or in a statutory rule, it is possible that the argument of learned counsel for the respondents may have been accepted and we may not have interfered with the method of shortlisting adopted by UPSC since it appears to be based on a rational and objective criteria.
20. However, in this case we have noticed that in Para 3.1 of the advertisement of UPSC dated 23-5-1998, the method of shortlisting has been given. Hence UPSC cannot resort to any other method of shortlisting other than that which has been prescribed in Para 3.1 In the said paragraph of the advertisement, it is mentioned that the Commission may restrict the number of candidates on the basis of either qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or on the basis of the experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or on the basis of experience in the relevant field. In other words, it was open to UPSC to do shortlisting by stating that it will call only those who have PhD degree in Agriculture (although the essential degree was only MSc degree in Agriculture). Similarly, UPSC could have said that it would only call for interview those candidates who have, say, five years' experience, although the essential requirement was only two years' experience. However, experience after getting MSc degree cannot be said to be higher than the experience before getting MSc degree. Also, the advertisement dated 23-5-1998 does not mention that two years' experience must be after getting MSc degree.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant has shown us several advertisements issued by the Union Public Service Commission in which it was specifically mentioned that experience must be after getting the postgraduate degree. However, in the present case, the advertisement does not mention that the two years' experience must be after getting MSc degree in Agriculture. Hence, we cannot add words to the advertisement and we must read it as it is.
22. As observed by this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489, AIR 1979 SC 1628 (vide:
“10. … It is a well-settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. This rule was enunciated by Mr Justice Frankfurter in William Vincent Vitarelli v. Fred A. Seaton 3 L Ed 2d 1012 (1959) where the learned Judge said: (US pp. 546-47)
‘An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged. … Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed. … This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with that sword.’
This Court accepted the rule as valid and applicable in India in Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia (Dr.) v. State of Punjab (1975) 3 SCC 503, AIR 1975 SC 984, (1975) 3 SCR 82 and in subsequent decision given in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975) 1 SCC 421, AIR 1975 SC 1331, (1975) 3 SCR 619 Mathew, J., quoted the abovereferred observations of Mr Justice Frankfurter with approval. It may be noted that this rule, though supportable also as an emanation from Article 14, does not rest merely on that article. It has an independent existence apart from Article 14. It is a rule of administrative law which has been judicially evolved as a check against exercise of arbitrary power by the executive authority. If we turn to the judgment of Mr Justice Frankfurter and examine it, we find that he has not sought to draw support for the rule from the equality clause of the United States Constitution, but evolved it purely as a rule of administrative law. Even in England, the recent trend in administrative law is in that direction as is evident from what is stated at pp. 540-41 in Prof. Wade's Administrative Law, 4th Edn. There is no reason why we should hesitate to adopt this rule as a part of our continually expanding administrative law.”
23. Had Para 3.1 not been in the advertisement of UPSC it is possible that we may have taken a view in favour of the respondents since in that case it was open to UPSC to resort to any rational method of shortlisting of its choosing (provided it was fair and objective). However, in the present case, a particular manner of shortlisting has been prescribed in Para 3.1 Hence, it is not open to UPSC to resort to any other method of shortlisting even if such other method can be said to be fair and objective.
24. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellant has been working as Deputy Director (Agriculture) since 2001 in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal and the interim order of this Court and we uphold his appointment. No costs.
Alert