9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of raising the period of practice as an advocate for appointment against the posts of Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts. 2. Interpretation of Section 8(3)(c) of the M.P Industrial Relations Act, 1960. 3. Legality of short-listing criteria for interview candidates. 4. Application of principles for conducting interviews in the selection process. Detailed Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission challenging the validity of raising the period of practice as an advocate from five years to seven and a half years for the appointment of Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts. The Commission's decision to call for interviews only those applicants with seven and a half years of practice was questioned by the respondents as exceeding the statutory requirement of five years of practice as per Section 8(3)(c) of the Act. 2. Section 8(3)(c) of the Act stipulates that an advocate or pleader must have practiced in Madhya Pradesh for a minimum of five years to be eligible for the post of Presiding Officer of the Labour Courts. The Court emphasized that altering the period of practice for short-listing candidates did not violate the statutory criterion but was part of the selection process. The Court clarified that the Commission's decision to call only candidates with seven and a half years of practice for interviews did not conflict with the Act's eligibility requirements. 3. The Court delved into the legality of the short-listing criteria for interviews, highlighting the importance of rational and objective short-listing to assess candidates' personality and merit effectively. The Court emphasized that short-listing candidates based on reasonable criteria did not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria outlined in statutory rules. The Court cited previous cases to support the necessity of limiting the number of candidates for interviews to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation process. 4. In discussing the principles for conducting interviews in the selection process, the Court highlighted the importance of selecting the best candidates and conducting interviews in a thorough and scientific manner. The Court referred to expert opinions and previous judgments to emphasize the significance of rational short-listing to evaluate candidates effectively. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and emphasized that short-listing candidates based on practice duration for interviews was a legitimate part of the selection process, not a violation of statutory criteria.
|
