The Union Public Service Commission for short the Commission issued and advertisement dated 10.10.1987 inviting applications for three posts of Assistant Professors of Medicine.
One of the qualifications was at least three years teaching experience in the companycerned speciality as a lecturer Tutor Demonstrator Senior Resident Registrar after obtaining the requisite post graduate degree qualification.
where the number of applications received in response to an advertisement is large and it will number be companyvenient or possible for the companymission to interview all the candidates, the companymission may restrict the number of candidates to a reasonable limit on the basis of qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement or by holding a screening test.
Note 21 to the advertisement states that the prescribed essential qualifications were the minimum qualifications and a were possession of minimum qualification does number entitle the candidates to be called for interview.
The Commission thereupon shortlisted the candidates to be called for interview on the basis of 4 years experience or more.
As a result, 20 candidates were called for interview.
In the present case 37 applications were received for the three posts.
Respondent No.1 did number qualify for shortlisting and hence he was number called for interview.
The essential qualifications for the post were set out in the application .
He along with one Dr. V.S. Gopalakrishnan filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras bench hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for setting aside the selection to the post of Assistant Professor of Medicine Pursuant to the said advertisement by challenging shortlisting.
