Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Mr. Kumbhakoni would further submit that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the rule for preference would amount to en bloc elimination of eligible candidates. That the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the difference between shortlisting and preference. That the provisions of the advertisement read with Rules of 2014 permits shortlisting the candidates based on preferential higher qualification.

14. Mr. Kumbhakoni would further submit that the criteria of shortlisting is applied only for open, general and DT(A) categories. He would clarify that MPSC is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal essentially to the extent of it setting aside application of shortlisting criteria.

REASONS AND ANALYSIS

31. As observed above two issues fall for our consideration in this batch of petitions (i) whether action of MPSC in resorting to shortlisting is justified and (ii) whether experience 902-WPST-9195-2021 + (1) in private hospitals/clinics can be taken into consideration while determining eligibility. First, we deal with the issue of application of shortlisting criteria of higher preferential qualification of MDS by MPSC for limiting the number of candidates for interviews, thereby eliminating candidates with BDS degree from the scope of selection.

(a) Whenever there is a provision for a preferential academic qualification or experience in the rules of recruitment of the post it shall be accorded the highest priority while shortlisting the candidates for interview."

37. It is common ground that the MPSC has conducted the selection by applying the provisions of Rules of 2014. Rule 9 provides for shortlisting of candidates for interview. If the posts advertised are three or more, the number of candidates who can be called for interview is only three times. In the present case, 189 posts of Dental Surgeon were advertised and, therefore, applying Rule 9, only 567 candidates were required to be called for interview. Rule 9 (v)(a) provides for application of criteria of preferential academic qualification for shortlisting. The Recruitment Rules provide for preference to be given to candidates possessing MDS degree. Therefore, under Rule 9 (v) (a) of Rules of 2014, the MPSC is entitled to 902-WPST-9195-2021 + (1) shortlist the candidates on the basis of higher preferential qualification. In the present case, since only 567 candidates were to be interviewed from amongst 9420 candidates, who had applied in pursuance of the advertisement, MPSC was entitled to resort to shortlisting. In our view, therefore, MPSC has rightly applied the criteria of possession of higher and preferential qualification of MDS for shortlisting the candidates for interview.

47. Thus, as per the clarification given by the Deputy Secretary, the experience of private/individual clinic was also required to be taken into consideration. MPSC acted on the clarification issued vide letter dated 1st October 2015 and while applying shortlisting criteria under Rule 9 of Rules of 2014, considered candidates having preferential qualification of MDS and experience of both Government as well as private hospitals/clinics and prepared a select list. However, the State Government later changed its opinion, and the Deputy Secretary addressed a letter dated 17th November 2016 to MPSC stating that the letter dated 1st October 2015 was reconsidered and this time, opined that consideration of experience in private hospitals/clinics was inconsistent with the provisions of Recruitment Rules and that, therefore, such experience should not be taken into consideration. It appears that by the time the State Government issued second clarificatory letter dated 17th November 2016, MPSC had already prepared the select list and recommended the names of candidates to the State Government.