Petitioner challenged UPSC's shortlisting criteria for Legal Officer post, arguing a recruitment test should have been held instead of raising experience requirements. Court dismissed the writ petition, noting criteria were rational and non-justiciable.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA
• - :• • •• • _ •
V-
J , ,
followed. The relevant portion of the advertisement reads:"Age: 30,yrs. , - QUALIFICATIONS : ESSENTIAL A. EDUCATIONAL: A degree in Law of a Recognized University or equivalent. (Note: Equivalent referred to in A above may be treated as L.L.B.) ' B. EXPERIENCE: Three years' experience at the Bar. DESIRABLE: Experience as Government Advocate. • 3.MINIMUM ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS: All applicants must fulfil essential requirements of the post and other conditions stipulated in the advertisement. They are advised to satisfy themselves before applying that they possess at least the essential qualifications laid down for various posts. No enquiry asking for advice as to eligibility will be entertained. NOTE-1: IN THE EVENT OFNUMBER OF APPLICATIONS BEING LARGE, COMMISSION WILL ADOPT SHORT LISTING CRITERIA TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES TO BE CALLED FOR INTERVIEW TO A REASONABLE ' NUMBER BY ANY OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: ; (a) On the basis of Desirable Qualification(DQ) or any one or all of the DQs if more than one DQ is prescribed. (b). On the basis of higher educational qualifications than the minimumprescribedin the advertisement. (c) On the basis of higher experiencein the relevant fields than the minimumprescribedinthe adyertisement. (^) By counting experience before or after the • acquisitionof essentialqualifications. i (e) By holdinga RecruitmentTest."
WP(C)No.l1603/2016
Page 2of5
The category -wise , is
given below:-,
| Si. 'No.' |
Category | No. Posts |
Of | No. applica |
' nts |
Of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 - , | ST • V | •4 | 066 | , | |
||
| 2 | SC;-' . |
-2 : ' |
371 | |||
| 3-. . ; | oBc, ', |
7 ... |
. | N92 .. |
". | 1- |
| 4 , . |
;'GEN , •• |
.19 | 681 | ; , |
||
| •5 : |
PH-B (Blind) -or PB,(Partially Blind) |
1* : |
' : |
050 , | ^ | |
| 6 | OH - OH (Orthopaedically Handicapped) |
,I* 1' ' |
• ... |
|||
| Total | 32, | 1610 | . | - |
| Sl. No.:.; |
Category r • 1 ^ |
Criteria fixed - for shortlisting |
No. Of vacancies |
No. candidates' called |
Of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 . | PH-B (Blind) or PB (Partially Blind) |
EQ (A) + EQ(B) |
1 | 06 | |
| •2 wprr |
PH-OH (Orthopedically Handicapped) 1 1 /cm /nm r |
.EQ . (A) raised; to ELM + ,EQ (B),: |
l,:,. | 07:. . •f ' |
. |
| 3 | ST | EQ (A) + EQ .(B) raised to 4 years and 9 months |
4 | 38 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | sc | EQ (A) raised to ELM +• EQ (B) raised to 4 years and 9 months |
2 | 54 (including 01 PH-OH. (Orthopaedically Handicapped) |
| 5 | OBC | EQ (A) raised to ELM + EQ (B) , raised to 4 years and 9 months |
7 • |
81 (Including 03 PH-B (Blind) & 02 PH-OH (Orthopaedically Handicapped |
| 6 | GENERAL | EQ • (A) raised to EEM + EQ (B) to 4 years and 9 months |
19 | 75 (Including 03 PH-B (Blind) & 02 PH-OH (Orthopaedically Handicapped) |
v>
WP(C) No.11603/2016 Page 4 of5
possibly have been adopted. The-criteriaadopted was one option as stipulated in the advertisement,and is not irrational, absurd, or ludicrous. We do not thinlc that this court should re-examine the shortlistingcriteriawhich,per se, cannot be held violativeof Article 14, or examine whether in the court's wisdom and opinion another criteria was more appropriate.
8.' The writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.
•
SANJIV KHANNA, J
JAY ANT NATH, J
DECEMBER 14, 2016/b WP(C) No. 11603/2016
Page5Qf5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Supreme Court can re-examine the rationality of shortlisting criteria adopted by UPSC.
Whether the petitioner is permitted to argue against the shortlisting criteria after being selected via interim order.
Whether the right to equality under Article 14 entitles parties to demand alternative shortlisting criteria.
Petitioner
Union Public Service Commission
SANJIV KHANNA
JAY ANT NATH
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
