Supreme Court of India
Sukhmander Singh And Ors Etc Etc vs The State Of Punjab And Ors Etc Etc on 11 September, 2024
Author: Hrishikesh Roy
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, Hrishikesh Roy
1 REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 736 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1511-1513/2021 SUKHMANDER SINGH AND ORS ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ETC. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1514/2021 O R D E R
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
Signature Not Verified
advertisement
Digitally signed by
Deepak Joshi
issued on 27.04.2011 by the PSEB. The
Date: 2024.09.25
16:56:08 IST
Reason:
eligibility criteria to apply for the said vacancies were
that the candidate must have qualified 10th standard with
2
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,
3
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
4
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 marks scored in
the written examination to the extent of five times the
number of vacancies, with marks assigned for qualification,
experience, knowledge of science practical equipments and
interview in such a proportion that they are not more than
1/3rd of the total marks.
8. Therefore, the learned Single Judge set aside the
selection while directing the PSEB to publish a revised
selection list i.e., to participate in a limited fresh
exercise as per the following directions:
“(i) Candidates five times the number of vacancies
be called for second stage of selection in the order
of merit as per the test conducted for shortlisting
of candidates.
(ii) The minimum marks can still be prescribed even
if the result is that some vacancies remain unfilled
as the same is in the interest of general merit
[Reference S. Vinod Kumar’s case (supra)].
(iii) The criteria for award of marks for rural area
is set aside.
(iv) The marks assigned for qualification,
5experience, knowledge of science practical
equipments and interview should be in such
proportion that marks for knowledge of science
practical equipments and interview are not more than
1/3rd of the total marks.”Division Bench’s Reversal: Selection Not Mala Fide
9. The Division Bench, vide the impugned judgment dated
20.07.2016, opined that the entire selection process need
not be disturbed. The 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.
10. It was 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.
11. On the question of awarding 5 marks to candidates
belonging to rural areas, both the Single Judge and the
learned Division Bench were of the same view that awarding
6
such marks on the basis of the residence of the candidates
would be legally impermissible. Such a conclusion was drawn
on the basis of the ratio in a Full Bench judgment of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court, Abhishek Rishi v. State of
Punjab & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 6980.
12. Accordingly, 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.
Discussion & Conclusion
13. Various submissions made by the learned counsels for
the parties have been considered. Essentially, the question
here is whether the criteria on the basis of which selection
was made could be made the legal basis for selection &
appointment of Laboratory Attendants or not.
14. Admittedly, the advertisement dated 27.04.2011
indicated that shortlisting of candidates should be done on
the basis of merit. However, the Order of the Chairman of
the PSEB dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure P-3) indicates that all
candidates obtaining 33.3% marks i.e., meeting the 20 marks’
cut-off benchmark, were declared eligible for the interview.
7
Therefore, no weightage was given for marks contained in the
written test. Instead, the selection was made on the basis
of the following criteria:
“CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF LAB ATTENDANTS
(i) Academic qualifications: Matriculation
a) 1st Division 05 marks
b) 2nd Division 03 marks
c) 3rd Division 02 marks
Supporting Qualifications/Activities:
a) Rural Area 05 marks
b) Knowledge of Science Practical Instrument 15
marks
(ii) Experience:
1 year 01 marks
2 years 02 marks
3 years 03 marks
4 years 04 marks
5 years 05 marks
(iii) Interview Marks: 20
Grand Total: (i) + (ii) + (iii) = 50”
15. Therefore, the merit of the candidates was to be
assessed on the cumulative score of 50. These aforesaid
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.
16. It must be noted that despite the fact that records
were called for by the Single Judge, 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
8
selection process. Therefore, the learned 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.
17. 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. On the contrary, it is
apparent that 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.
18. 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
9
overlooked.
19. 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.
20. In light of these considerations, the impugned judgment
(dated 20.07.2016) can 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 learned Single Judge to commence the selection
from the stage of written test, deserves our approval.
21. Accordingly, 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 direction given in Clause (iv.) of Para 37 in the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2014, for
assignment of marks for qualification, experience, knowledge
10
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 suggested criteria
by the learned Single Judge in the judgment may address a
part of the requirement of assessing the merit of the
candidates.
22. For the job of a Laboratory Attendant, both theoretical
and practical aspects are of equal importance. Therefore,
the merit of the candidates should be re-assessed in the
following manner:
Criteria Earlier Revised Written Examina- Qualifying 50 tion Interview 20 20 5 10 Academic Qualific- (5 for 1st Divi- (10 for 1st Divi- ations sion, 3 for 2nd Di- sion, 6 for 2nd Di- vision & 2 for 3rd vision & 4 for 3rd Division) Division) Knowledge of Sci- 15 15 11 entific Practical Equipment 5 Experience (as on date of notifica- (1 for 1 year, 2 5 tion) for 2 years, so on & so forth) Rural Areas 5 0 Total Marks 50 100
23. To carry out the exercise, depending upon their per-
formance 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. As is clear
from the aforementioned tabulated chart, 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 notific-
ation i.e., 27.04.2011).
12
24. As some of the shortlisted candidates may have become
gainfully employed elsewhere or no longer interested in pur-
suing the same, a waiting list of 10 beyond the 31 notified
vacancies should also 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.
25. At this juncture, we have been informed by Mr. Khurana,
the learned counsel for the PSEB, that the marks scored by
the individual candidates in the written examination are
available in the PSEB records. Therefore, a fresh selection
exercise is to be carried out in terms of the above direc-
tions, within eight weeks from today.
26. With the above order, the appeals are allowed. The
parties to bear their own cost.
…………………..J.
[ HRISHIKESH ROY ]
……………………J.
[ SUDHANSHU DHULIA ]
……………………J.
[ S.V.N. BHATTI ]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 11, 2024
13
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.5 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).1511-1513/2021
SUKHMANDER SINGH AND ORS ETC. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ETC. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 1514/2021 (IV)
Date : 11-09-2024 These appeals were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTIFor Appellant(s)
Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vijay Kasana, AOR
Mrs. Chetna Singh, Adv.
Mr. Chirag Verma, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Tanwar, Adv.
Mrs. Smita Bankoti, Adv.
Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR
Mr. Ashish Sheoran, Adv.
Mr. Karan Thakur, Adv.
Ms. Diva Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR
Mr. Akash Alex, Adv.
Mr. Praful Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. P.S. Khurana, Adv.
Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AORMr. Nitin Bhardwaj, AOR
14Mr. Himanshu Sharma, AOR
Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Aditi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Lokesh Solanki, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RThe Appeals are allowed in terms of the signed
reportable order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
[DEEPAK JOSHI] [KAMLESH RAWAT] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed Reportable Order is placed on the File)