Common preliminary screening ratio in recruitment upheld where reservation remains protected in the overall selection process.

A common preliminary screening ratio for shortlisting candidates was upheld as a permissible recruitment method because it operated only as an eligibility filter and did not final merit or appointment. Articles 15 and 16 were treated as enabling provisions, not a source of enforceable rights to demand community-wise shortlisting at the screening stage, and reservation continued to apply within the overall recruitment framework. The Public Service Commission was held to have locus standi because the impugned judgment directly set aside its recruitment process. The common screening procedure was therefore restored, and the contrary view of the High Court was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the preliminary screening process fixing a common shortlisting ratio without community-wise reservation was ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether reserved category candidates had an enforceable right to insist on community-wise shortlisting at the preliminary stage and to challenge the recruitment notification on that basis; (iii) whether the Public Service Commission had locus standi to maintain the appeal.

Issue (i): whether the preliminary screening process fixing a common shortlisting ratio without community-wise reservation was ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The recruitment scheme provided only a preliminary screening test to shortlist candidates for the main examination and did not determine merit or final selection. The State was competent under Article 309 to frame recruitment rules and, under Article 162, to issue governmental orders governing the method of selection. The Commission was entitled to devise a fair procedure for shortlisting, but that procedure had to remain consistent with the constitutional mandate of efficiency under Article 335 and with the reservation framework already recognised in the State rules. The common screening ratio was treated as a permissible method of filtering candidates, not as a denial of reservation at the stage of final appointment.

Conclusion: The common screening ratio at the preliminary stage was not unconstitutional and the High Court was wrong in striking down the recruitment process on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether reserved category candidates had an enforceable right to insist on community-wise shortlisting at the preliminary stage and to challenge the recruitment notification on that basis.

Analysis: Articles 15 and 16 confer an enabling power and do not create a fundamental right to reservation or to a writ of mandamus compelling a particular mode of reservation. The State rules and the Commission's regulations preserved reservation at the relevant stages of recruitment, including the right of reserved category candidates to compete and, where merited, to be selected in the open category or in the reserved category. The preliminary examination was only an eligibility filter, while the actual protection of reservation operated within the overall recruitment framework. The procedure also reflected horizontal reservations for women and persons with disability, which did not require a separate community-wise cut-off at the screening stage.

Conclusion: No enforceable right to community-wise shortlisting at the preliminary stage was established, and the challenge to the notification could not succeed on that basis.

Issue (iii): whether the Public Service Commission had locus standi to maintain the appeal.

Analysis: The impugned judgment directly affected the Commission because it set aside both the governmental order and the recruitment notification and required a fresh selection process. The Commission had conducted the examination under the impugned procedure and was therefore a person aggrieved by the judgment.

Conclusion: The Commission had locus standi to maintain the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The recruitment procedure providing for a common preliminary screening test was upheld, the High Court's contrary view was set aside, and the selection process under the impugned notification was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A preliminary screening test used only to shortlist candidates for the main examination may adopt a common cut-off or ratio so long as the reservation framework for final consideration is preserved and the procedure is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or unfair.

---