Limiting Candidates For Viva Voce Ensures Transparency & Meritocracy In Selection Process: SC Directs PSEB To Carry Out Fresh Selection Exercise For Lab Attendants
|The Supreme Court observed that limiting the number of candidates for the viva voce stage improves the efficiency, transparency, and fairness of the selection process while ensuring that only the most qualified candidates advance to the interview stage, reducing bias and upholding meritocracy.
The Court was hearing an Appeal challenging the decision of the division bench of the High Court which reversed the decision of a Single Judge who annulled the selection process.
The bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SVN Bhatti observed, “…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…a fresh selection exercise is to be carried out in terms of the above direc- tions, within eight weeks from today.”
Senior Advocate Sanjay Ghosh appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Avishkar Singhvi appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The case involves the selection process for 31 Laboratory Attendant vacancies advertised by the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB). A total of 1,952 candidates were shortlisted for interviews after a written test. Following the release of the final list of selected candidates, several unsuccessful candidates challenged the results in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, citing irregularities in the selection process. The Single Judge annulled the selection process while noting that a lack of transparency and unjustified shortlisting criteria was used and accordingly, it ordered a fresh process. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed the decision and observed that the selection was not biased or mala fide, although it agreed that awarding marks for rural residences was impermissible. It directed the PSEB to revise the list, deducting the rural area marks, and to proceed with appointments accordingly.
The Court noted that in a situation where there are only 31 posts up for grabs, limiting the number of candidates for the viva voce segment becomes essential for several reasons such as, “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 said that the direction given in the impugned judgment for the assignment of marks for qualification, experience, knowledge of science practical equipment 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 Court observed, “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…”
The Court further directed that a waiting list of 10 beyond the 31 notified vacancies should also be prepared as according to the Court 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.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeals.
Cause Title: Sukhmander Singh v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 736)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghosh, AORs Vijay Kasana, Devendra Singh, Advocates Chetna Singh, Chirag Verma, Ankit Kumar, Ashish Tanwar, Smita Bankoti, Ashish Sheoran, Karan Thakur and Diva Singh
Respondent: AORs Siddhant Sharma, Ram Naresh Yadav, Nitin Bhardwaj, Himanshu Sharma Akash Alex, Advocates Praful Bhardwaj, P.S. Khurana, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Ram Niwas Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Aditi Sharma, Arun Kumar and Lokesh Solanki