Furthermore, we find that there is no rule of law as to
the ratio of number of vacancies to the number of
candidates for being called for interview; although it may
be a rule of prudence. This Court has found in Mohinder
Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 662,
as also in Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4
SCC 417, that although it may be improper for the Selection
Committee to call such large number of candidates for
interview, but selection cannot be vitiated merely on this
ground if such an action is not tainted by mala fide or
oblique motive. In Mohinder Sain Garg (supra), this Court
gave one more reason not to accept this argument which
squarely applies to this case as well; this Court found
that the Respondents stood no chance of being called for
interview if candidates upto three times the number of
posts were called for interview. In the case on hand, on
this score, learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh
has made a similar contention. Even the appellants herein
have not presented a case that had they been called for
interview, being only four times the number of vacancies,
they would have been short listed in that list. Thus, we
find this argument as a misplaced one.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6549 OF 2014
HC Pradeep Kumar Rai and Ors. ...Appellant(s)
:Versus:
Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Citation;AIR 2015 SC2342
Print Page
the ratio of number of vacancies to the number of
candidates for being called for interview; although it may
be a rule of prudence. This Court has found in Mohinder
Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 662,
as also in Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4
SCC 417, that although it may be improper for the Selection
Committee to call such large number of candidates for
interview, but selection cannot be vitiated merely on this
ground if such an action is not tainted by mala fide or
oblique motive. In Mohinder Sain Garg (supra), this Court
gave one more reason not to accept this argument which
squarely applies to this case as well; this Court found
that the Respondents stood no chance of being called for
interview if candidates upto three times the number of
posts were called for interview. In the case on hand, on
this score, learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh
has made a similar contention. Even the appellants herein
have not presented a case that had they been called for
interview, being only four times the number of vacancies,
they would have been short listed in that list. Thus, we
find this argument as a misplaced one.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6549 OF 2014
HC Pradeep Kumar Rai and Ors. ...Appellant(s)
:Versus:
Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Citation;AIR 2015 SC2342

