Sukhmander Singh And Ors Etc Etc vs The State Of Punjab And Ors Etc Etc

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, 5

experience, 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. BHATTI

For 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, AOR

Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, AOR 14

Mr. 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 R

The 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)