Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, in pursuance to an advertisement dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-1), applied for the post of Female Supervisor, the qualification whereof was Graduation from a recognised university, preferably in Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition with Hindi/Sanskrit up to Metric Standard. He contends that respondent No. 2 has resorted to shortlisting of the candidates by fixing a minimum percentage of marks in the respective category and interview on the basis of essential academic advertised qualification i.e. Graduation, which has resulted into virtually deleting the preferential clause added in the qualification, which is in Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition. Petitioner possesses the Graduation degree in Home Science with 63.24% marks. Vide the shortlisting process, the minimum marks of general category have been fixed as 65% as per the public notice dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P-6), which has rendered the petitioner without a chance for competing for the post. It has further been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had, after the advertisement was issued, placed on the website of the Commission the process chart of recruitment, according to which, after the receipt of applications, scrutiny and punching of all category examinations, the next process would be the preparation of roll numbers and written examination. He contends that Commission had already taken a decision to hold an examination and by issuance of the public notice dated 01.08.2012, the Commission has resorted to deviating from the already decided procedure and for which, no rationale criteria has been adopted or reasons assigned therein. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala and others, (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 497, wherein it has been held that in a given situation, a decision taken by the State may be changed but for that, good and sufficient reasons must be assigned. Since respondent No. 2-Commission has not assigned good and sufficient reasons for changing the mode of shortlisting, the process resorted to by respondent No. 2-Commission vide public notice dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P-6) cannot be said to be in accordance with law. He, accordingly, prays for the present writ petition to be allowed.
(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case.
(3.) In a similar case i.e. titled as Mandhir and another v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 15822 of 2012 decided on 17.08.2012, where this very argument qua this very selection and shortlisting had been challenged, this Court has held as follows:- " It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that advertisement dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure-P-4) was issued by the Commission-respondent No. 3 for filling up 150 posts of Pharmacists on regular basis. In pursuance thereto, as the petitioners full fill the requisite qualification, applied for the said post and submitted their application forms before the last date prescribed i.e. 12.4.2010. Almost after one year, a corrigendum dated 15.7.2011 (Annexure-P-5) was issued by respondent No. 3 when these posts were increased to 226. Thereafter, another corrigendum dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure-P-6) was issued by the Commission-respondent No. 3 wherein it has again been reduced to 165 posts of Pharmacists. Thereafter, now respondent No. 3 resorted to shortlisting of candidates by fixing a cut off percentage of 65% in the qualifying diploma course of Pharmacist for being eligible for calling the candidates for interview purpose. This, counsel for the petitioners states, is totally an arbitrary act on the part of the respondents. She contends that when in the special instructions, which was part of the advertisement, wherein it was specifically mentioned that shortlisting of candidates can be resorted to by way of written examination. The resort by the respondents to shortlisting by fixing 65% as marks for calling the candidates for interview, is not sustainable. She on this basis contends that the impugned notice/corrigendum dated 14.6.2012 (Annexure P-7) deserves to be quashed. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and with her assistance have gone through the records of the case. Special instructions, which was part of the advertisement, as also the application form reads a follows:- "Special Instructions:- The prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The Commission may shortlist the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of a rationale criterion to be adopted by the Commission. The decision of the Commission in all matters relating to acceptance or rejection of an application, eligibility/suitability of the candidates, mode of and criteria for selection etc. will be final and binding on the candidates. No inquiry or correspondence will be entertained in this regard." A perusal of the above would show that the Commission had put to notice the candidates that in case a large number of candidates would be eligible possessing the essential qualification, the Commission could resort to shortlisting the candidates for interview. Mere possession of essential qualification would not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. For resorting to shortlisting the candidates, it was provided that the Commission could hold a written examination or to lay down a rationale criteria to be adopted by the Commission on the basis of which shortlisting could be done. If that be the intent as has been specified and having been informed, the resort by the respondents upon the process of shortlisting by fixing 65% minimum marks in the diploma course which is the qualifying examination for being eligible for applying the post for the purpose of interview cannot be faulted with as the power to lay down the criteria for shortlisting was kept by the Commission intact in its special instructions. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the same is arbitrary cannot be accepted as an uniform criteria has been adopted and made applicable to the selection process of shortlisting to all the candidates of the same category. This process and the resort of fixing the minimum cut off percentage is by now a well recognised process of shortlisting, which cannot be faulted with.";