Prashant Singh Rawat vs Medical Superintendent and Another

Manju Goel, J.—The petitioner applied for the post of Lab Technician in the organization of respondent No. 1-Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent'') for which an advertisement was published in the Employment News dated 20-26.9.2003. He was not called for the interview. His prayer is for a mandamus directing respondents to consider the petitioner for the post of Lab Technician. The eligibility criteria was as under:

Age : 20-28 years Essential qualifications & experience required : 1. matriculation or equivalent qualification from a recognized Board.

Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology with one year experience or Science Graduate

The petitioner''s claim is that the petitioner fulfils the criteria yet was not considered for the appointment. In the counter it is mentioned that the eligibility criteria was only essential qualification or the bare minimum and it was clarified in the advertisement that the same would not entitle the candidates to be called for interview/selection. In the advertisement itself it was mentioned, "However, if the number of applications received for a post is large, then the hospital reserves the right to hold a written test for the purpose of short-listing of the candidates for interview.

The respondent''s case is that the respondent received nearly 5000 application for the post of Lab Technicians out of which 2761 candidates were found to be eligible. It is further contended that since the hospital authorities do not have adequate infrastructure and manpower to conduct interview for such a large number of candidates, a Committee was constituted by the Medical Superintendent to lay down the criteria for short-listing the candidates to be called for interview and the following criteria was suggested for short-listing:

(i) Age as advertised;

(ii) Diploma in Medical Lab Technology with one year''s experience from a AICTE recognized institute; and

(iii) Science graduate with one year''s experience of working in a medical laboratory.

The respondent alleges that short-listing was done according to these criteria and the petitioner could not be short-listed as he did not possess a diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from a AICTE recognized institute. Further the petitioner did not have one year''s experience of working in a medical laboratory.

In the rejoinder the petitioner disputed the respondent''s right to short-list on the basis of additional criteria. It is further alleged that respondent No. 1 had called for interview other candidates who did not fulfill the additional criteria for short-listing. The petitioner has filed a list of 139 candidates who did not possess the conditions of one year''s experience but were called for interview.

So far as the respondent''s right to short-list on the basis of the additional criteria is concerned, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another, wherein it was held that when the number of candidates is large the employer can adopt some criteria for short-listing. The respondent has not deviated from the basic eligibility conditions. However, in view of the large number of candidates who had applied for the post, it was necessary to short-list on some rational basis. In the judgment of Navnit Kumar Potdar (Supra) the Supreme Court held that the said short-listing was in fact a process of selection.

The petitioner disputes that the number of candidates was large. According to the petitioner the number was only around 350. The petitioner''s counsel refers to a letter dated 8.4.2004 written by the HOD (Labs) to the Medical Superintendent wherein it was stated that the department had received 350 application forms which was required to be short-listed. A copy of the letter placed on the record is not very legible. The number of application forms received could be 350 or 850 but even if they were 350 applications, the number was fairly large and, Therefore, the respondent was justified in adopting additional criteria for short-listing.

In view of above, the petitioner cannot be given any relief. The petition is dismissed.