Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Sukhmander Singh And Ors Etc. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Punjab And Ors Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 1511-1513 Of 2021 With Civil Appeal No(s).1514 Of 2021
Decided On : 11-09-2024
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Laboratory Attendants – Benchmark eligibility cut-off of 33%, to call candidates for interview stage was made after entire process had begun, tailor-made and did not have any nexus with object sought to be achieved – Marks secured by candidates in written test were not considered or given any weightage for such selection either – In a recruitment process where there are only 31 posts up for grabs, subjecting excessively large number of candidates (in this case, 63 times number of vacancies) to interview stage, would inevitably lead to a situation where even those candidates who may have performed very poorly in written test, are granted unfair shot at appointment and many more qualified candidates are potentially overlooked – In such a scenario, limiting number of candidates for viva voce segment becomes essential for several reasons – It ensures that only the most qualified candidates, based on an objective criterion, proceed to stage of interview, helping maintain integrity of the process, upholding principles of meritocracy and reducing chances of oversight – Candidates only up to five times number of vacancies should be permitted to appear in interview – Fresh selection exercise to be carried out in terms of these directions. (Paras 17, 18, 21 and 25)
Facts of the case:
This matter pertains to 31 vacancies that arose on post of Laboratory Attendants. Essentially, question here is whether criteria on the basis of which selection was made could be made legal basis for selection & appointment of Laboratory Attendants or not.
Findings of Court:
As some of shortlisted candidates may have become gainfully employed elsewhere or no longer interested in pursuing the same, a waiting list of 10 beyond the 31 notified vacancies should also be prepared. If any vacancy remains unfilled from amongst 31 in order of merit in the list, those vacancies can be filled up in order of merit from waitlisted candidates.
Result : Appeals allowed.
ORDER :
(Hrishikesh Roy, J.) :
1. Heard Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Vijay Kasana, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. Also heard Mrs. Smita Bankoti, learned counsel for the appellants in the connected appeal. The Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) is represented by Mr. P.S. Khurana, learned counsel. The State of Punjab is represented by Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, learned counsel.
Factual Matrix: How We Reached Here
2. This matter pertains to the 31 vacancies that arose on the post of Laboratory Attendants, pursuant to an advertisement issued on 27.04.2011 by the PSEB. The eligibility criteria to apply for the said vacancies were that the candidate must have qualified 10th standard with Science & Punjabi as subjects. A total number of 4,752 applicants applied for these posts. As part of the initial screening, a preliminary written test was conducted on 28.09.2011, on the basis of which a total of 1,952 candidates were shortlisted as per the determined benchmark cut-off score.
3. These shortlisted candidates were subsequently called for the next segment of the selection process i.e., the interview stage. Due to the sheer number of candidates, interviews were conducted over multiple dates, culminating in the completion of the selection exercise. Thereafter, a final list of selected candidates was published on 04.04.2012.
4. Several unsuccessful candidates, aggrieved by their exclusion from the final list dated 04.04.2012, then moved the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh by filing different Writ Petitions, challenging the final list of selected candidates dated 04.04.2012 and seeking directions to conduct the same afresh. These aforementioned Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 31.10.2012. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, concluded that the process of selection did not inspire confidence and accordingly, set aside the entire selection process and directed for these posts to be re-advertised by the PSEB. However, this judgment was assailed by the aggrieved parties, following which the Division Bench on 29.05.2013, remitted the matter back, observing that the selected candidates were to be heard and the matter be decided afresh by the Single Judge.
Annulment of Selection Process by the Single Judge
5. As per the directions of the Division Bench, the matter was heard afresh by the learned Single Judge. Upon reconsideration, it was observed that the appointment process was marred by irregularities and lacked transparency, with no rules or instructions specifying the criteria adopted for shortlisting candidates for the interview stage. In fact, no material had been placed on record and no deliberations made by the Selection Committee made available, to demonstrate the criteria fixed for shortlisting candidates for the next stage i.e., the interview. Further, the learned Single Judge further held that shortlisting candidates to the extent of 63 times the number of vacancies was not justified either.
6. The learned Judge observed that several candidates that had been shortlisted for the interview stage had secured very low marks in the written test, and were therefore low on merit. This revealed a disparity in the selection process as no merit list was prepared on the basis of the written test results either.
7. The Court noticed the pattern of marks awarded for practical experience and interview for posts where the eligibility criterion was only matriculation. Awarding marks on these criteria would naturally depend on the subjective satisfaction of the members of an Interview Board, and therefore, vitiate part of the selection process as well. However, considering the fact that scrapping the entire selection process might prejudice those who had applied and subsequently became over-aged and the fact that the written test for shortlisting was found to have been carried out in a bona fide manner, the learned Single Judge noted that candidates should be shortlisted as per the
Appointment – Limiting number of candidates for viva voce segment promotes principles of meritocracy and helps maintain integrity of the process.
The court affirmed that petitioners, having previously accepted the selection process, were barred from later contesting the methodology due to principles of waiver and acquiescence, despite alleging....
Selection process legality cannot be challenged after participation without evidence of misconduct or unfairness.
The court established that merit lists for public appointments must strictly adhere to the prescribed guidelines, and any deviation that introduces favoritism or lacks transparency is subject to judi....
Earmarking of 200 marks for viva voce test as against 850 marks for written examination does not violate the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Earmarking of 200 marks for viva voce test as against 850 marks for written examination does not violate the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Participating without objection in the selection process bars a candidate from later contesting its fairness; procedural adherence in evaluation is crucial for validity.
Court does not sit in appeal over decision of Selection Committee.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
