An expert body has the authority to establish reasonable criteria for shortlisting candidates, and the court will uphold such criteria when challenged.

1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order Anx. P/8 whereby the petitioner's application form for calling him for interview for the post of Lecturrer in Botany was cancelled.

2. The petitioner's case is that in pursuance of the advertisement no. 6/93-94 dated 21.10.1993 for the post of Lecturer in Botany. It is alleged that the petitioner is qualified and eligible for the post. It is also alleged that in the meantime posts of College Lecturer in Botany were reduced from 68 to 10 but the petitioner was not called for interview as stated above vide Anx. P/8. Hence, this writ petition.

3. In reply to the writ petition respondents have stated that the petitioner was (sic) short listed as he was not having requisite cumulative marks, though the eligibility of the petitioner has not been disputed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission being expert body is entitled to fix the criteria for short listing which is within the purview of the concerned body. Their lordships of the Supreme Court also in a decision reported in AIR 1988 SC-2073 have held that an authority can restrict zone of consideration in a reasonable manner if so many candidates satisfy minimum eligibility requirement and all need not to be considered. In view of this, no interference is called for. That apart this Court in identical matter pertaining to different subject arising out of the same advertisement in S.B.C.W. Petition No. 1313/95 has already dismissed the writ petition on 20.4.1995 (K.C. Sharma and Anr. v. State and Anr.) which has been affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 423/95 (Def.) decided on 27.4.95 . Under these circumstances no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. The ad-interim order dated 17.7.1995 directing the' respondents to issue provisional interview letter to the petitioner, stands discharged. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the interview being being given by him in pursuance of the interim order dated 17.7.95 since it was made clear that the same will be subject to the decision of the writ petition.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed in terms of the decision given in K.C. Sharma's case (supra.).Writ Petition Dismissed.

*******