If Number Of Qualified Applicants Disproportionately Exceed Vacancies, Selection Committee May Shortlist Candidates Based On Rational Criteria

Case: State of Kerala & Anr v. K.S Govindan Nair

Coram: Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P

Case No.: W.A.NO.101 OF 2021

Court Observation: “While a Selection Committee cannot alter the method of identifying qualified candidates, if such method is prescribed by the rules or in the notification calling for candidates, if the number of candidates satisfying the qualification criteria under the notification is disproportionately large when compared to the vacancies available, then their number can be trimmed down through the process of shortlisting. The only limitation thereto is that the criteria for shortlisting should not have the effect of eliminating candidates for not having qualifications that were never notified.”

“The Selection Committee can adopt any rational criteria, keeping in mind the nature of the duties required to be performed by the incumbent to the post in question, and trim down the number of candidates to a level commensurate with the number of vacancies notified.”

“A Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory but purely administrative. That being the case, once it has adopted shortlisting criteria that are (i) fair (ii) reasonable (iii) have a rational connection with the object of the selection process, and (iv) are applied uniformly to all candidates at the different stages of shortlisting, this court would refrain from interfering with such shortlisting on the broader principle of deference to the wisdom of the employer in the matter of selecting its employees.”

“The application of the benchmark and the conduct of the interview have therefore to be seen as part of the shortlisting procedure adopted by the Selection Committee to identify the best candidate among all the qualified candidates, through progressive elimination of the others. We do not think that the said procedure adopted by the Selection Committee falls foul of the principles laid down in the precedents discussed above.”

Previous Posts

Denial Of Maintenance To Estranged Wife & Child Is Worst Offence From Humanitarian Perspective: Delhi High Court Imposes 20K Cost On Husband

Right Of Accused To Representation Integral Part Of Article 21, Trial Court Must Appoint Amicus In Absence Of Defence Counsel: Madras High Court

11 Yrs Of Frivolous Litigation: Bombay High Court Reprimands Petitioner In Person, Imposes 1 Lakh Cost

Employee Not Entitled To Seek Permanency Or Regularisation Of Service If Continued On Ad Hoc Basis For Decades: Delhi High Court

Coal Allocation Per Se Does Not Amount To “Proceeds Of Crime” Under PMLA: Delhi High Court

Section 37 NDPS Act – “Credible & Plausible” Grounds To Believe Accused Is Not Guilty Required To Grant Bail: Supreme Court

Single Member Benches Of NGT Cannot Be Constituted In View Of Proviso To Section 4(4)(c) NGT Act: Supreme Court

Contempt Action Can Be Taken Only In Respect Of Established Wilful Disobedience Of Court Order, Reiterates Supreme Court Download Judgement

Extramarital Affair No Ground To Conclude Woman Wouldn’t Be A Good Mother & Deny Her Child Custody: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Keywords

Disproportionately Exceed Vacancies, Rational Criteria