Case Note & Summary
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued an advertisement for six posts of Additional Legal Adviser in the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. The advertisement prescribed minimum educational qualifications and experience. Due to a large number of applicants, UPSC adopted a shortlisting criteria for general category candidates: those possessing both essential qualifications (EQ(A) and EQ(B)) with at least two years of experience as Assistant Legal Adviser or Deputy Legal Adviser in the Indian Legal Service. Some candidates who were not shortlisted challenged this criteria before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, which set aside the shortlisting and directed UPSC to call all candidates meeting the minimum qualifications for interview. UPSC challenged this order before the Bombay High Court. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the shortlisting criteria was rational and non-arbitrary. The court observed that prescribing higher qualifications for shortlisting is permissible and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that a candidate has no fundamental right to be called for interview merely because they meet the minimum qualifications. The Tribunal had erred in substituting its own criteria for that of UPSC. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and upheld UPSC's shortlisting.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality in Public Employment - Shortlisting Criteria - Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India - The court considered whether UPSC's shortlisting criteria requiring higher experience than the minimum prescribed was arbitrary. Held that prescribing higher qualifications for shortlisting is permissible and does not violate Articles 14 and 16, as long as the criteria are rational and non-arbitrary. The Tribunal erred in substituting its own criteria. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Recruitment - Shortlisting - No Right to Be Called for Interview - The court held that a candidate has no fundamental right to be called for interview merely because they meet the minimum qualifications. The recruiting body can adopt reasonable criteria for shortlisting based on higher experience or qualifications. (Paras 5-10) C) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Substitution of Criteria - Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - The court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own shortlisting criteria for that of UPSC. The decision to shortlist is an administrative function and courts/tribunals should not interfere unless the criteria are arbitrary or mala fide. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the shortlisting criteria adopted by UPSC for calling candidates for interview for the post of Additional Legal Adviser was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5th March, 2003, and upheld the shortlisting criteria adopted by UPSC.
Law Points
- Shortlisting criteria must be rational and non-arbitrary
- No fundamental right to be called for interview
- Prescribing higher qualifications for shortlisting is permissible
- UPSC can adopt criteria based on higher experience
- Administrative Tribunal cannot substitute its own criteria
