In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, the case concerning the fair evaluation process for Laboratory Attendants in the PSEB selection criteria has been addressed. The judgement highlights the importance of transparency and merit-based selection in the recruitment process, setting a precedent for future hiring procedures. #SupremeCourt #SelectionProcess #Transparency #MeritBased
Facts
- 31 vacancies for Laboratory Attendants arose post an advertisement by PSEB on 27.04.2011.
- Eligibility criteria required candidates to have passed 10 standard with Science & Punjabi as subjects.
- A total of 4,752 applicants applied for the vacancies.
- 1,952 candidates were shortlisted after a preliminary written test conducted on 28.09.2011.
- Interviews were conducted for the shortlisted candidates to complete the selection exercise.
- The selection process for Laboratory Attendants was marred by irregularities and lacked transparency.
- No merit list was prepared based on the written test results.
- Selection was made based on criteria including academic qualifications, experience, and interview marks totalling to 50 marks.
- The criteria for shortlisting candidates was not rigid or mandatory.
- The division bench opined that the selection need not be disturbed entirely.
- The selection criteria were fixed after the written test results were declared.
- Candidates excluded from the final list challenged the selection in the High Court.
- Awarding marks for rural areas was found legally impermissible.
- The selection criteria did not allocate 50 marks solely for the interview but included various evaluative criteria.
- The PSEB was unable to produce material showing the criteria for selection were decided upon before the selection process began.
- The Single Judge set aside the selection process and directed for the posts to be re-advertised.
- The criteria decided upon did not have any nexus with shortlisting candidates based on merit.
- The Division Bench remitted the matter back for reconsideration.
- The appointment process was observed to lack transparency with no specified criteria for shortlisting candidates.
- The selection criteria were adopted only when the interviews were to be held.
- Low-scoring candidates in the written test were shortlisted for interviews, raising concerns about merit.
- The Division Bench suggested compiling a fresh list as the selection process was not mala fide or biased.
Also Read: High Court of Madhya Pradesh Reverses Judgment on Charges against Accused in Assault Case
Analysis
- The judgement emphasizes the importance of a fair evaluation process for candidates applying for the job of Laboratory Attendant.
- The suggestion is made to limit the number of candidates for the interview stage to ensure transparency and reduce bias.
- Candidates are to be evaluated on a total of 100 marks, with 50 marks for the written examination.
- Revised criteria are proposed, giving equal weightage to theoretical and practical aspects of the job.
- It is recommended to shortlist candidates based on their performance in the written test for the interview.
- The direction to start the selection process from the written test stage is supported.
- The judgment eliminates marks for rural area criteria in the selection process.
- Subjecting an excessive number of candidates to the interview stage is deemed unfair and overlooks qualified candidates.
- The focus is on ensuring that only the most qualified candidates proceed to the interview stage for a fair selection process.
Also Read: Land Acquisition Dispute: High Court Judgment Reversed
Decision
- Waiting list of 10 candidates to be prepared beyond the 31 notified vacancies
- Vacancies remaining unfilled from the 31 can be filled from the waitlisted candidates in order of merit
- Parties to bear their own cost
- Appeals allowed based on the above order
- Fresh selection exercise to be conducted within eight weeks from today
- Marks scored by candidates in written examination available in PSEB records
Also Read: Amendment of Pleadings in Smt. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) v. Smt. Katoribai
Case Title: SUKHMANDER SINGH AND ORS ETC ETC Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ETC ETC. (2024 INSC 736)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001511-001513 – 2021
