Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

24. In view of the above Rule, the Public Service Commission has got two courses of action open
to it for short listing the applications received. One is to short list them through screening test or to
short list them on the basis of predetermined criteria relating to academic qualifications and experience.
Therefore, when the Public Service Commission adopts the second criteria i.e. short listing the candidates
on the basis of academic qualification and experience; firstly it should be ascertained that while laying
down a criteria based on qualifications and experience, there is no violation of any prescribed statutory
qualification and if there be no such violation then the criteria should always be a predetermined
criteria and not a criteria to be evolved after seeing the different applications. If the criteria is not
predetermined then there may be a charge of bias or favouritism. Secondly, when a criteria has to be
adopted it should be based both on experience and qualification. The words used in the Rules are
‘experience and qualification’ and not ‘experience or qualification’.
25. Undisputedly the impugned criteria adopted by the Public Service Commission is based only
on experience and that too it is not a predetermined criteria. Further, it is in violation of the prescribed
statutory qualifications. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order impugned laying down the
criteria by the Public Service Commission by raising the practising experience from 5 years to 7½
years and short listing of candidates on that basis is contrary to law and therefore, the order refusing to
call the petitioners for interview on the revised criteria is illegal. The order impugned passed by the
Public Service Commission revising the criteria for calling the candidates for interview is, therefore, set
aside. The Public Service Commission is directed to either call all the candidates who have applied for
interview or to screen the candidates through some screening test according to the aforesaid Rule of
the Public Service Commission and therefore call only those candidates for interview, who qualify for
interview in the screening test. We may observe that in the other services and especially in the M.P.
Judicial Service, written tests are being held. However, for the recruitment to the Labour Judiciary
rules provide only interview as mode of selection. Therefore, atleast a screening test can be held for
getting the best possible candidates for interview for the post of Presiding Officer Labour Court.
26. As a result of the aforesaid discussion M.P.Nos.1393 of 88, 1366 of 88, 1406 of 88 and
1407 of 88 are allowed. The order of the P.S.C. revising the criteria of practising experience for the
purpose of interviews is quashed. The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission is directed to
either hold a screening test for reducing the number of candidates for interview or to call the four
petitioners along with all the other candidates for interview in case the Public Service Commission
decides not to hold any screening test.
Madhya Pradesh PSC
691