The Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) has ruled that Public Service Commission (PSC) can shortlist candidates through a preliminary examination when applications are large in number, and refuses to interfere in the absence of proof of actual prejudice or unfairness. The Court reaffirmed that a preliminary examination can be used as a screening mechanism to reduce a large pool of applicants before the main examination.
Since the marks obtained in the screening examination are not counted for final ranking, the test merely determines eligibility to appear for the next stage of selection. The Court found that the petitioners failed to establish that the common preliminary examination actually caused them any specific disadvantage or resulted in the selection of ineligible candidates.
At the same time, the Court cautioned that the candidates who took part in the recruitment process without protest cannot ordinarily challenge the procedure after becoming unsuccessful. As the ranked list had already been published and appointments had been made, the Court was reluctant to interfere in the absence of any demonstrated illegality or injustice.
Briefly, the case arose from the recruitment process initiated by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Trainee) pursuant to a notification issued on 30 December 2019. The original recruitment notification contemplated only a main written examination and a physical efficiency test. Subsequently, in August 2020, the PSC introduced Rule 2A into its Rules of Procedure, empowering it to conduct a preliminary screening test for shortlisting candidates.
Acting under this power, PSC conducted a common preliminary examination for candidates applying to 42 different degree-level posts and prepared an eligibility list for the SI recruitment based on the cut-off marks secured in that screening test. The petitioners, who were excluded from the eligibility list, challenged the process before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and, after losing there, approached the High Court.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. noted that the law is already settled by the Supreme Court that recruiting agencies are entitled to adopt a shortlisting mechanism, including preliminary examinations, when a very large number of candidates apply for a limited number of posts. A preliminary examination is merely a screening exercise to identify candidates eligible to take the main examination and does not determine final merit because its marks are not counted for ranking purposes.
The Court observed that although the original recruitment notification did not mention a preliminary examination, judicial precedents recognise the authority of public service commissions to introduce a screening mechanism where the number of applicants becomes unmanageably large. The Court also noted that Rule 2A specifically authorised PSC to conduct such a screening test.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged concerns expressed by the Tribunal regarding the PSC’s practice of conducting a common preliminary test for multiple posts across different departments. The Tribunal had found that such a system could potentially disadvantage candidates possessing qualifications particularly relevant to a specific post and could also allow participation by persons who might not satisfy the prescribed physical qualifications. However, these concerns remained largely theoretical because the applicants failed to prove with concrete evidence that any unqualified candidate actually displaced them or that the process caused identifiable prejudice.
The Court further observed that the recruitment process had already been completed, the ranked list had been published, and appointments had been made. In the absence of proof of actual injustice, interference at that stage was not warranted. The Court also accepted the Tribunal’s finding that candidates who voluntarily participated in the preliminary examination without objection and raised challenges only after being unsuccessful could not ordinarily turn around and attack the selection process later.
