Supreme Court Revises Selection Criteria for Laboratory Attendants: Sukhmander Singh vs. State of Punjab (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 September 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 736

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Can a selection process that does not prioritize merit in the initial stages be considered fair? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the recruitment of Laboratory Attendants by the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB). The core issue revolved around whether the PSEB’s selection criteria, which did not give weightage to the written test scores, were legally valid and ensured a merit-based selection process. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, overturned the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court and upheld the decision of the Single Judge, directing the PSEB to conduct a revised selection process based on merit. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, with the opinion authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The case originated from an advertisement issued by the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) on 27 April 2011, for 31 vacancies for the post of Laboratory Attendants. The eligibility criteria required candidates to have passed the 10th standard with Science and Punjabi as subjects. A total of 4,752 candidates applied for these positions. The selection process involved a preliminary written test conducted on 28 September 2011, based on which 1,952 candidates were shortlisted for the interview stage. The interviews were conducted over multiple dates, and a final list of selected candidates was published on 4 April 2012. Several unsuccessful candidates challenged this final list in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, alleging irregularities in the selection process. They sought a fresh selection process.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The unsuccessful candidates filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, challenging the final selection list of 4 April 2012. The Single Judge, in a judgment dated 31 October 2012, concluded that the selection process lacked transparency and set aside the entire process, directing the PSEB to re-advertise the posts. However, the aggrieved parties appealed this decision, and the Division Bench, on 29 May 2013, remitted the matter back to the Single Judge, directing that the selected candidates be heard before a fresh decision was made.

Upon reconsideration, the Single Judge observed that the appointment process was marred by irregularities. The court noted that there were no rules or instructions specifying the criteria for shortlisting candidates for the interview stage. The Single Judge also found that shortlisting candidates to the extent of 63 times the number of vacancies was not justified. The court noted that several candidates with low marks in the written test were shortlisted for the interview, revealing a disparity in the selection process. The Single Judge, on 20 February 2014, set aside the selection and directed the PSEB to conduct a limited fresh exercise, shortlisting candidates based on written test scores (five times the number of vacancies) and ensuring that marks for practical knowledge and interviews did not exceed 1/3rd of the total marks.

The Division Bench, in its judgment dated 20 July 2016, reversed the Single Judge’s decision, opining that the entire selection process need not be disturbed. The Division Bench noted that the interviews were conducted over 19 days and that inviting candidates 63 times the number of posts was not a fatal error. The Division Bench also stated that the criteria for shortlisting candidates to the extent of 3-5 times the number of vacancies was not a rigid or mandatory criterion. It was also noted that the interview aspect only consisted of 20 marks and was not on the higher side. The Division Bench, however, agreed with the Single Judge on the point of awarding 5 marks to candidates belonging to rural areas, holding it legally impermissible, based on the ratio in Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 6980. The Division Bench directed the PSEB to compile a revised list by deducting the 5 marks awarded for rural areas, and make appointments based on this list.

Legal Framework

The judgment emphasizes the importance of merit in selection processes, particularly in public employment. The court noted that the advertisement dated 27 April 2011, indicated that shortlisting of candidates should be done on the basis of merit. The court also highlighted the need for transparent and pre-determined criteria for selection. The court also referred to the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab & Ors. , 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 6980, which held that awarding marks on the basis of the residence of the candidates would be legally impermissible.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the selection process was flawed because the PSEB did not consider the marks secured in the written test for shortlisting candidates for the interview. The appellants contended that the criteria for selection were not specified in any rules or instructions and were adopted only when the interviews were to be held, after the results of the written test had been declared. The appellants also argued that shortlisting 63 times the number of vacancies for the interview was excessive and led to a situation where even candidates who performed poorly in the written test were given a chance at selection, overlooking more qualified candidates.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the selection process was not mala fide or biased. They contended that the interviews were conducted elaborately over 19 days to determine the suitability of candidates. The respondents also argued that inviting candidates 63 times the number of posts for the interview stage did not constitute a fatal error and that the criteria for shortlisting candidates to the extent of 3-5 times the number of vacancies was not a rigid or mandatory criterion.

The respondents further argued that the selection criteria did not allocate 50 marks solely for the interview component but instead, consisted of a broad range of evaluative criteria (academic qualifications, knowledge of science practical equipment, rural areas, et cetera) as well. In fact, the interview aspect only consisted of 20 marks, and therefore, was not on the higher side.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the central issue as:

• Whether the criteria on the basis of which selection was made could be the legal basis for selection and appointment of Laboratory Attendants.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authority:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of merit in the selection process for public employment. The Court noted that the PSEB’s selection criteria, which did not give weightage to the written test scores, were not merit-based and lacked transparency. The Court emphasized that the selection criteria should be pre-determined and not adopted after the written test results are declared. The Court also highlighted that shortlisting an excessively large number of candidates for the interview stage would inevitably lead to a situation where even those candidates who may have performed very poorly in the written test are granted an unfair shot at appointment, and many more qualified candidates are potentially overlooked.

The Court considered the arguments for and against the selection criteria adopted by the PSEB. The Court rejected the argument that the interviews were conducted elaborately and that the interview component was not excessive. The Court held that the selection process was flawed because the PSEB did not consider the marks secured in the written test for shortlisting candidates for the interview and that the criteria for selection were not specified in any rules or instructions and were adopted only when the interviews were to be held.

The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that the direction given by the learned Single Judge to commence the selection from the stage of written test, deserved approval. The Court directed that candidates only up to five times the number of vacancies should be permitted to appear in the next segment of the recruitment test i.e., the interview. The Court also directed that the marks for qualification, experience, knowledge of science practical equipments and an interview should be kept in such proportion that marks for knowledge of science practical equipments and interview together should not be more than 1/3rd of the total marks.

The Court observed:

“In fact, it is also equally important to note that no deliberations in the form of minutes of the meeting by the Selection Committee have been made available either, to prove that the PSEB fixed a criterion of selection before the entire process had commenced.”

“We must bear in mind that the marks secured by candidates in the written test were not considered or given any weightage for such selection either.”

“In such a scenario, therefore, limiting the number of candidates for the viva voce segment becomes essential for several reasons. Firstly, it enhances the efficiency of the selection process by providing for a more thorough and fair evaluation of each candidate. Secondly, by restricting the number of candidates, the process becomes more transparent and less susceptible to allegations of favouritism or bias. Consequently, it ensures that the only the most qualified candidates, based on an objective criterion, proceed to the stage of an interview, helping maintain the integrity of the process, upholding principles of meritocracy and reducing chances of oversight.”

Key Takeaways

• Merit must be the primary consideration in public employment selection processes.
• Selection criteria must be transparent and pre-determined, not adopted after the selection process has begun.
• Weightage must be given to written test scores in the selection process.
• Shortlisting an excessively large number of candidates for the interview stage is not permissible.
• Marks for practical knowledge and interviews should not exceed 1/3rd of the total marks.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the PSEB to conduct a fresh selection exercise within eight weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court directed that candidates should be shortlisted based on their performance in the written test, to the extent of five times the number of vacancies. The Court also directed that the selection should be based on a total of 100 marks, with 50 marks for the written examination, 20 marks for the interview, 15 marks for knowledge of scientific practical equipment, 10 marks for academic qualifications, and 5 marks for experience. The Court also directed that a waiting list of 10 candidates should be prepared.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the selection process for public employment must be based on merit, with transparent and pre-determined criteria. The judgment reinforces the principle that marks secured in written tests should be given due weightage and that shortlisting an excessively large number of candidates for the interview stage is not permissible. The judgment also reinforces the principle that marks for practical knowledge and interviews should not exceed 1/3rd of the total marks. The judgment also reinforces the principle that awarding marks on the basis of the residence of the candidates i.e., rural areas, is legally impermissible.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sukhmander Singh vs. State of Punjab underscores the critical importance of merit and transparency in public employment selection processes. The Court’s decision to set aside the Division Bench’s judgment and direct a fresh selection process based on written test scores reflects a commitment to ensuring that only the most qualified candidates are selected for public service. This judgment serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving public employment and reinforces the principle that merit should be the primary consideration in such processes.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Recruitment

Child Category: Selection Process

Child Category: Merit

Child Category: Transparency

Parent Category: Punjab School Education Board

Child Category: Recruitment Rules

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Sukhmander Singh vs. State of Punjab case?

A: The main issue was whether the selection criteria adopted by the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) for the recruitment of Laboratory Attendants was legally sound and merit-based.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment and directed the PSEB to conduct a fresh selection process based on the written test scores.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court find the PSEB’s selection process flawed?

A: The Supreme Court found the selection process flawed because the PSEB did not give weightage to the written test scores, the criteria were adopted after the written test results were declared, and an excessively large number of candidates were shortlisted for the interview.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?

A: The key takeaways are that merit must be the primary consideration in public employment selection processes, selection criteria must be transparent and pre-determined, weightage must be given to written test scores, and shortlisting an excessively large number of candidates for the interview stage is not permissible.

Q: What directions did the Supreme Court give to the PSEB?

A: The Supreme Court directed the PSEB to conduct a fresh selection exercise within eight weeks, shortlisting candidates based on their performance in the written test, to the extent of five times the number of vacancies. The Court also directed that the selection should be based on a total of 100 marks, with 50 marks for the written examination, 20 marks for the interview, 15 marks for knowledge of scientific practical equipment, 10 marks for academic qualifications, and 5 marks for experience.

Q: What is the implication of this judgment for future recruitment processes?

A: This judgment sets a precedent for fair and merit-based selection processes in public employment, emphasizing the importance of transparency and pre-determined criteria.