Read Time: 18 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that limiting the number of candidates for the viva voce segment becomes essential for it enhances the efficiency of the selection process by providing a more thorough and fair evaluation of each candidate. 

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and S V N Bhatti said that 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," the bench said.

The court was examining whether the criteria used for the selection process could serve as the legal foundation for appointing Laboratory Attendants by the Punjab School Education Board.

The court held that allowing interviews for candidates numbering 63 times the available vacancies would create a scenario where even those with poor performance in the written test could unfairly secure an opportunity for appointment, potentially sidelining more qualified candidates.

A total of 31 vacancies arose on the post pursuant to an advertisement issued on April 27, 2011. Applicants were required to have passed the 10th grade, with Science and Punjabi as mandatory subjects.

Out of 4,752 applicants, a preliminary written test was held on September 28, 2011, to shortlist candidates. Based on a benchmark cut-off score, 1,952 candidates were selected for the next phase.

After several rounds of interviews, the final list of successful candidates was published on April 4, 2012.

However, the selection process was challenged by unsuccessful candidates, and on October 31, 2012, a single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the process lacked transparency and credibility. Accordingly, it set aside the entire selection process and directed for these posts to be re-advertised by the PSEB.

On May 29, 2013, a division bench referred the matter back to the single judge, noting that the selected candidates needed to be heard before a fresh decision could be made.

Upon re-examination, the single judge once again nullified the selection process, directing the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) to conduct a limited fresh exercise and publish a revised selection list.

The division bench, by the impugned judgment of July 20, 2016, however, opined that the entire selection process need not be disturbed. 

The high court division bench observed that the interviews were conducted elaborately over 19 days to determine the suitability of candidates. It further noted that inviting candidates 63 times the number of posts for the interview stage did not constitute an error fatal enough to vitiate the entire selection process. Additionally, it was noted that the criteria for shortlisting candidates to the extent of 3-5 times the number of vacancies was not a rigid or mandatory criterion either.

The division bench also noted that the adopted 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.

Both the single judge and the division bench were of the view that awarding 5 marks to rural candidates on the basis of the residence of the candidates would be legally impermissible. 

The division bench, having acknowledged that the selectees had already worked for about 5-6 years with some of them having become over-aged as well, opined that since the selection process was not mala fide or biased, a fresh list should be compiled by the PSEB. This revised list would necessitate the deduction of the 5 marks previously awarded to candidates for belonging to rural areas, on the basis of which appointments should be made.

Examining the issue after submissions made by the parties, the apex court's bench noted that no weightage was given for marks contained in the written test. Instead, the selection was made on the basis of other criteria like academic qualification, supporting qualification, experience and interview marks.

Therefore, the merit of the candidates was to be assessed on a cumulative score of 50. These criteria, however, were not specified in any rules or instructions. In fact, the said criteria came to be adopted only when the interviews were to be held, the bench noted.

"The PSEB was unable to produce any material to show that the criteria for selection had been decided upon, prior to the onset of the entire selection process. Therefore, the single judge concluded, on the basis of file notings that were produced before him, that the selection criteria had been fixed only on the date when interviews were to commence, i.e., after the result of the written test had already been declared," the bench said.

The court also found no deliberations in the form of minutes of the meeting by the Selection Committee had been made available either, to prove that the PSEB fixed a criterion of selection before the entire process had commenced. 

On the contrary, the criteria decided upon i.e., a benchmark eligibility cut-off of 33%, to call candidates for the interview stage was made after the entire process had begun, tailor-made and did not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e., shortlisting candidates on the basis of merit either, it said.

"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. Additionally, in a recruitment process where there are only 31 posts up for grabs, subjecting an excessively large number of candidates (in this case, 63 times the number of vacancies) to 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 bench said.

The court thus held that the impugned judgment of July 20, 2016 could be sustained only to the limited extent of eliminating marks awarded for the rural area criteria. 

"Therefore, we are of the view that the direction given by the single judge to commence the selection from the stage of written test, deserves our approval," the bench said.

The court, accordingly, directed that the 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 bench also said that the direction given in the judgment of the single judge on February 20, 2014, for assignment of 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 equipment and interview together should not be more than 1/3rd of the total marks. 

"The suggested criteria by the single judge in the judgment may address a part of the requirement of assessing the merit of the candidates," the bench said.

The court also opined that for the job of a Laboratory Attendant, both theoretical and practical aspects are of equal importance. 

To carry out the exercise, depending upon their performance in the written test, candidates to the extent of five times the number of vacancies should be shortlisted to participate in the next segment of the test, the bench ordered. 

The court directed that the candidates should be evaluated on a total of 100 marks, of which 50 marks would be awarded on the basis of a written examination.

From the balance, 20 marks should be awarded on the basis of the candidate’s performance in an interview, 15 marks on the basis of knowledge of scientific practical equipment, 10 marks on the basis of academic qualifications (10 for 1st Division, 6 for 2nd Division & 4 for 3rd Division) and 5 marks on the basis of experience (as on the date of notification i.e., April 27, 2011), the bench said.

The court further directed that, since some of the shortlisted candidates may have found employment elsewhere or may no longer be interested in the position, a waiting list of 10 candidates beyond the 31 notified vacancies should be prepared.

If any vacancy remains unfilled from amongst the 31 in order of merit in the list, those vacancies can be filled up in order of merit from the waitlisted candidates, the bench said.

Since the marks scored by the individual candidates in the written examination are available in the PSEB records, the bench said, a fresh selection exercise is to be carried out in terms of the directions, within eight weeks.

Case Title: Sukhmandar Singh And Ors Etc Vs The State of Punjab And Ors Etc