2007 (11) TMI 673 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the eligibility criteria for the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department, Government of Pondicherry, and the method of short-listing adopted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the selection process.

Eligibility Criteria Issue:
The appellant applied for the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) and was not called for the interview by the UPSC as he did not have two years of experience in extension work/soil/Input Analysis after obtaining his M.Sc. degree in Agriculture. The appellant contended that the advertisement did not specify that the experience must be after obtaining the degree, and he had the required experience before obtaining his M.Sc. degree.

Tribunal's Decision Issue:
The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the appellant to appear for the interview through an interim order, and subsequently, the appellant was appointed as Deputy Director (Agriculture). The High Court set aside the appointment, stating that the Tribunal should have assessed the appellant's eligibility instead of directing the UPSC to publish the result.

Short-Listing Method Issue:
The High Court observed that the UPSC's method of short-listing candidates was rational and legal. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the UPSC must adhere to the short-listing method prescribed in the advertisement. The Court highlighted that the UPSC cannot deviate from the specified short-listing criteria, as mentioned in the advertisement.

Judgment Summary:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court upheld the appellant's appointment as Deputy Director (Agriculture) since 2001. It was emphasized that the UPSC must follow the prescribed short-listing method mentioned in the advertisement, and any deviation from it is not permissible. The Court reiterated the importance of adherence to advertised standards in administrative decisions to prevent arbitrary exercise of power.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment focused on the importance of strict adherence to advertised criteria in administrative decisions, particularly in the context of short-listing methods for recruitment processes. The Court upheld the appellant's appointment as Deputy Director (Agriculture) and emphasized the significance of following the specified selection criteria outlined in the advertisement.