Limiting Candidates For Interview Necessary To Enhance Efficiency & Transparency Of Selection Process : Supreme Court
Citing the lack of transparency and irregularities adopted in shortlisting the candidates for the interview stage, the Supreme Court directed the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) to commence the fresh selection process of the Laboratory Attendants from the stage of written test.
The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti set aside the High Court's Division Bench decision which had approved PSEB's decision to invite candidates 63 times the number of vacancies for the interview.
The Court ordered that the candidates to the extent of five times the number of vacancies should be shortlisted to participate in the next segment of the test i.e., interview.
The matter pertains to the 31 vacancies that arose on the post of Laboratory Attendants, pursuant to an advertisement issued on 27.04.2011 by the PSEB. The eligibility criteria to apply for the said vacancies were that the candidate must have qualified 10th standard with 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.
Some of the unsuccessful candidates approached the High Court, where the Single Bench directed the PSEB to conduct a fresh recruitment process from the written stage questioning the shortlisting of the candidates 63 times the number of vacancies. It held that shortlisting candidates to the extent of 63 times the number of vacancies was not justified either because 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 Single judge noticed that disparity amongst the candidates called for the interview as several candidates didn't perform well in the written test but still called to appear in the interview.
The Single bench decision was interfered with by the Division Bench of the High Court. It opined that the entire selection process need not be disturbed. Further, it 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.
Supreme Court's Findings
Affirming the Single Bench decision, the court observed that the entire shortlisting exercise of the candidates conducted by the selection committee was tailor-made as it was not based on the candidate's performance in the written test rather the committee had shortlisted candidates based on a benchmark eligibility cut-off of 33% that was fixed in middle of the selection process, 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, to call candidates for the interview stage.
“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 court said.
The court pointed out the importance of limiting the number of candidates to appear in interviews so that the meritocracy of the recruitment process does not get affected.
“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.”, the court observed.
In light of the aforesaid, the Court ordered 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.
“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. 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 notification i.e., 27.04.2011).”, the court held.
The Court also ordered that a waiting list of 10 beyond the 31 notified vacancies should also be prepared in case 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 entire exercise needs to be completed within eight weeks from the date of judgment, the court said.
Accordingly, the appeals were allowed.
Appearance:
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 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.
Case Title: SUKHMANDER SINGH AND ORS ETC. VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1511-1513/2021
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 749