The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the standards set in the advertisement and the rule of administrative law, stating that an executive authority must rigorously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them.

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

( 1 ) 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 Petition 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 No. 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 the UPSC, essential qualifications mentioned therein were as follows :

"essential : a. : Educational : M. Sc. Degree in Agriculature from a recognized 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 the M. Sc. degree.

( 7 ) IT appears that the UPSC resorted to short listing 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 the M. Sc. degree in agriculture. He no doubt had the requisite experience, but that was obtained before he got his M. Sc. degree. The 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 Masters degree in agriculture. The appellant undoubtedly had such experience before obtaining his M. Sc. degree in agriculture.

( 9 ) SINCE the appellant was not called for the interview he filed OA. No. 1045/97 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 off the O. A. filed before it by directing the 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 the UPSC to restrict the number of candidates to be called for the interview by adopting a short-listing method. The High Court was of the view that there was no irrationality or illegality in the method of short-listing adopted by the UPSC. With respect, we cannot agree.

( 14 ) IN paragraph 3. 1 of the advertisement of UPSC dated 23/5/19