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

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday ruled that a Selection Committee constituted to nominate a suitable candidate for a post can shortlist qualified applicants to trim down the number of such eligible applicants, provided the criteria for shortlisting do not eliminate candidates for not having qualifications that were never notified earlier.

A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P was dealing with a petition that questioned the validity of a shortlisting procedure adopted by the State Selection Committee for the post of Chairman of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. 

"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 writ petitioner applied for the post of Chairman of the State Pollution Control Board, by responding to a notification published by the State. Although the notification elaborated on the essential qualifications to be possessed by applicants, it did not specify the procedure to be followed for the selection of a candidate for the post.

This procedure was prescribed by the State through a Government Order issued later, which constituted a Selection Committee to scrutinize the applications received and to nominate a suitable candidate after conducting an interview.

The Selection Committee initially screened all the 23 applications and found 17 qualified candidates. After the final evaluation, 8 candidates who scored above 60 marks were interviewed by the Committee and the writ petitioner was not one of them. Accordingly, the Selection Committee nominated the 4th respondent for the post. This nomination was challenged by the petitioner before the Single Judge. 

The writ petitioner argued that the shortlisting procedure followed by the Selection Committee was illegal. He contended that he had satisfied the essential qualification requirements in the notification and hence there was no justification for excluding him from the interview process that was an integral part of the selection process. 

The Single Judge found that since the Government had prescribed an interview as the method of selection, all the candidates who possessed the essential qualifications prescribed in the notification should have been called for the interview. The nomination of the 4th respondent was therefore set aside and the Government was directed to redo the selection process by getting the Committee to interview all the 17 candidates.

Against this decision, the State filed an appeal before the Division Bench. 

State Attorney N. Manoj Kumar argued that fixing benchmarks to reduce the number of qualified candidates for consideration was permissible and that such an exercise did not amount to changing the rules of the game after the selection process had commenced. It was also contended that even where a selection is to be made only on the basis of an interview, the Selection Committee can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for the interview. The shortlisting procedure, he submitted, is an essential part of the selection process itself. 

Senior Advocate K. Jaju Babu appearing for the writ petitioner supported the findings of the Single Judge and contended that when the State had specifically provided for an interview as the method of selection, all candidates who had the essential qualifications had to be seen as qualified for being called for the interview. 

The Court noted that shortlisting is often resorted to in a selection process to trim down the list of persons found eligible for the post to a level where the further process of identifying one or more persons from among those found eligible, becomes practical or manageable. The legality of these procedures is often challenged, mostly on the ground that it amounts to changing the rules of the game after the selection process has commenced.

After referring to a series of precedents, the Bench found that the principle that can be culled out on the issue of shortlisting is that the Selection Committee can introduce new criteria to trim down the number of qualified candidates for a post as long as the new criteria for shortlisting do not eliminate candidates for not having qualifications that were never notified of.

"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."

The Court also recalled the true role of a Selection Committee.

"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 Court noted that the interview was not a procedure that a candidate was told that he/she had to undergo so as to qualify for a consideration of his/her candidature in the selection process. It was only a part of the shortlisting procedure applied to qualified candidates so as to identify one among them for nomination.

However, it was observed that the format of the application for the post provides a clue because it mentioned that the applicants had to furnish details of not only their essential educational qualifications but also details showing their performance under various heads/parameters on which they were to be assessed by the Selection Committee.

It was based on their declaration in respect of the said parameters of assessment that the Selection Committee assessed them. Thereafter, the benchmark of 60 marks was applied to identify the 8 persons who were shortlisted for the interview. Thus, the applicants attained the status of qualified persons only after their evaluation on the various parameters stipulated in the application format.

"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."

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. 

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 362

Click Here To Read/Download The Order