IMPORTANT POINT
In shortlisting, any number of candidates required in certain proportion of the number of vacancies, they may be shortlisted in order of merit from serial No. 1 upto the number of candidates required and it is not necessary to fix any minimum qualifying marks.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Constitution of India-Articles 16(4), 320 and 335-Selections-Shortlisting number of candidates by screening test-Prescribing minimum qualifying marks is unreasonable and without powers-Advertisement issued by Service Commission for recruitment of 500 Medical Officers in PCMS-Commission scrutinized applications and notified to hold a screening test for all categories of candidates-Commission fixed 45 cut off marks for general category candidates and 40 cut off marks for SC candidates for their consideration for selection-Prescribed mode of selection was only interview of eligible candidates-Out of 500 vacancies, 125 were reserved for SC, 62 of which were for Balmiki and Majhbi Sikhs and remaining for General Category SCs-Only 279 appeared as SC (General) candidates out of which 59 could clear the test-Out of 27 persons belonging to Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs applied, out of which only four could clear the test-Whether it was competent for Punjab Public Service Commission to resort to screening test to shortlist number of candidates-(Yes)-Could a written test be held to fix some minimum cut off marks-(No).
       Held : Shortlisting of the candidates by screening out those, in respect of whom it would serve no purpose to call them for further test, may be excluded by adopting the method of screening test. Generally speaking a ratio of 3-5 candidates for one post is normally accepted depending upon the number of seats. Therefore, for 100 posts the selecting body may in order of merit take out about first 500 candidates for further tests/interview. The rest of the candidates would be screened out. No candidate excluded by adopting such a method for shortlisting can raise any grievance whatsoever. But for such shortlisting as indicated above, it is not necessary to fix any minimum qualifying marks. Any candidate on the top of the list at number 1 down upto 500 would obviously constitute the shortlisted zone of consideration for selection. For the purpose of elaboration it may be observed that in case some cut-off marks is fixed in the name of shortlisting of the candidates and the number of candidates obtaining such minimum marks, suppose is less than 100 in that event screening test itself will amount to a selection by excluding those who though possess the prescribed qualification and are eligible for consideration but they would be out of the field of consideration by reason of not crossing the cut-off marks as may be fixed by the recruiting body. This would not be a case of shortlisting. In shortlisting, as observed above, any number of candidates required in certain proportion of the number of vacancies, they may be shortlisted in order of merit from serial No.1 upto the number of candidates required. (Paras 7 & 8)
       As observed earlier, for the purpose of shortlisting it would not at all be necessary to provide cut-off marks. Any number of given candidates could be taken out from the top of the list upto the number of the candidates required in order of merit. For example, there may be a situation where more than required number of candidates may obtain marks above the cut-off marks say for example out of 10,000 if 8,000 or 6,000 candidates obtain 45 marks then all of them may have to be called for further tests and interview etc. It would in that event not serve the purpose of shortlisting by this method to obtain the given ratio of candidates, and the vacancy available. For 100 vacancies at the most 500 candidates need be called. If that is so any candidate who is otherwise eligible upto the 500th position whatever be the percentage above or below the fixed percentage would be eligible to be called for further tests. Thus the purpose of shortlisting would be achieved without prescribing any minimum cut-off marks. In the case in hand, it was not for the Commission to have fixed any cut-off marks in respect of reserved category candidates. The result has evidently been that candidates otherwise qualified for interview stand rejected on the basis of merit say, they do not have the upto the mark merit, as prescribed by the Commission. The selection was by interview of the eligible candidates. It is certainly the responsibility of the Commission to make the selection of efficient people amongst those who are eligible for consideration. The unsuitable candidates could well be rejected in the selection by interview. It is not the question of subservience but there are certain matters of policies, on which the decision is to be taken by the Government. The Commission derives its powers under Article 320 of the Constitution as well as its limits too. Independent and fair working of the Commission is of utmost importance. It is also not supposed to function under any pressure of the government, as submitted on behalf of the appellant Commission. But at the same time it has to conform to the provisions of the law and has also to abide by the rules and regulations on the subject and to take into account the policy decisions which are within the domain of the State Government. It cannot impose its own policy decision in a matter beyond its purview. (Paras 10 and 11)

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-The above noted appeals involve a common question of law, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. There may be some minor differences here and there on facts but without effecting the main question involved, hence for the purposes of dealing with the matter, we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal Nos.2305-06/1999. The main question for our consideration in these appeals is as to whether it was competent for the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short the Commission ) to resort to screening test with a view to shortlist the number of candidates to bring it to the ratio of three to five candidates per vacancy and further, whether keeping in view the efficiency required for the services in respect of which selection and appointments was to be made, could a written test be held to fix some minimum cut off marks, where process of selection was by interview of eligible candidates belonging to reserve category.

2. The High Court, in the judgments impugned in the above noted appeals, held that the action of the Commission in holding the screening test and prescribing the minimum qualifying marks was unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence, gave a direction that the Commission would interview the petitioners if not already interviewed and declare the result of the selection as per their merit within the time specified. The Commission has preferred the above noted appeals along with the State of Punjab as one of the appellants. The main thrust of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission is that the Commission is a constitutional and independent authority and it is its duty to make an endeavour to secure efficiency in the public administration by selecting the suitable candidates for the public services. While discharging such a duty, it is submitted that it would not be subservient to the direction of the government unless permissible under the law. Thus, to the extent indicated above, there may be some conflict in the stand between the State Government and the Commission. But both are impleaded as appellants, the lead was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Commission, who virtually, alone made his submissions.

3. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement No.4 of 1997 was issued by the Commission for recruitment of 500 Medical Officers in P.C.M.S. (Class-1). In all 303 Scheduled Castes (General) (for short S.C.) candidates applied. The candidates belonging to other Reserved categories like S.C. (Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs) also applied. The Commission scrutinized the applications and notified to hold a screening test on 28.9.1997 for all categories of candidates. So far S.C. candidates are concerned, out of 303 applications, 279 appeared as S.C. (General) candidates out of which 59 could clear the test. To complete the details of the break-up of the number of seats and reservation etc. it may be indicated that out of 500 vacancies, 125 were reserved for S.C. candidates 50 per cent of which, namely 62 posts for Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs and the remaining for the general category of S.C.s. Only 27 persons belonging to Balmikis and Majhbi Sikhs applied out of which only four could clear the test. The Commission fixed 45 cut-off marks for general category candidates and 40 cut off marks for S.C. candidates for their consideration for the selection. The prescribed mode of selection was only interview of eligible candidates on the basis of their educational qualifications.

4. The State Government has issued instructions vide letters dated 14.5.1969 and 5.5.1970, indicating the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to hold a test viz. where the number of candidates in the reserved category is more than the number of seats available, a competitive test could be held but no test is to be held where the number of candidates available may be equal or less than the number of the seats. The letters dated 14th May, 19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 898

IMPORTANT POINTIn shortlisting, any number of candidates required in certain proportion of the number of vacancies, they may be shortlisted in order of merit from serial No. 1 upto the number of candidates required and it is not necessary to fix any minimum qualifying marks.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
In shortlisting, any number of candidates required in certain proportion of the number of vacancies, they may be shortlisted in order of merit from serial No. 1 upto the number of candidates required and it is not necessary to fix any minimum qualifying marks.