SUKHMANDER SINGH AND ORS ETC.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ETC.

                 [2024] 10 S.C.R. 98 : 2024 INSC 736

                   Sukhmander Singh and Ors Etc.
                                  v.
                   The State of Punjab and Ors Etc.
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 1511-1513 of 2021)
                             11 September 2024
             [Hrishikesh Roy,* Sudhanshu Dhulia and
                        S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as to whether the criteria on the basis of which
       selection was made could be made the legal basis for selection
       and appointment of Laboratory Attendants.

                                  Headnotes†
       Service law – Selection/appointment – Post of laboratory
       attendents – Selection process for 31 vacancies – 1,952
       candidates shortlisted for interview after the written test –
       Publication of final select list – Challenge to, by the
       unsuccessful candidates – Single Judge annulled the selection
       process observing that the process was irregular and lacked
       transparency – However, the Division Bench held that the
       selection process was not mala fide or biased, a fresh list
       should be compiled by the Board, deducting 5 marks previously
       awarded to candidates belonging to rural areas – Sustainability:
       Held: In a recruitment process where there are only 31 posts up
       for grabs, subjecting an excessively large number of candidates,
       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 – Thus, limiting the number of candidates
       for the viva voce segment becomes essential for several
       reasons – It enhances the efficiency of the selection process
       by providing for a more thorough and fair evaluation of each
       candidate – By restricting the number of candidates, the process
       becomes more transparent and less susceptible to allegations of
       favouritism or bias – Thus, it ensures that only the most qualified
       candidates, based on an objective criterion, proceed to the stage of

* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                             99

 Sukhmander Singh and Ors Etc. v. The State of Punjab and Ors Etc.


     an interview, helping maintain the integrity of the process, upholding
     principles of meritocracy and reducing chances of oversight –
     Impugned judgment can be sustained only to the limited extent of
     eliminating marks awarded for the rural area criteria – Thus, the
     direction given by the Single Judge to commence the selection
     from the stage of written test, upheld – Candidates only up to
     five times the number of vacancies to be permitted to appear in
     the next segment of the recruitment test-interview – 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 and 5 marks on the basis of
     experience – Waiting list of 10 beyond the 31 notified vacancies
     to 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 – Thus, fresh
     selection exercise to be carried out in terms of the said directions.
     [Paras 17-20, 23-25]

                              Case Law Cited
     Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2013) SCC OnLine
     P&H 6980 – referred to.
                              List of Keywords
     Selection; Selection and appointment of Laboratory Attendants;
     Interview stage; Efficiency of selection process; Fair evaluation;
     Integrity of the process; Principles of meritocracy; Chances of
     oversight; Elimination of marks awarded for rural area criteria;
     Written test.
                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1511-1513
     of 2021
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2016 of the High Court of
     Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1381 and 856 of 2014
     and LPA No. 804 of 2015
     With
     Civil Appeal No. 1514 of 2021
100                                                          [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


                          Appearances for Parties
       Sanjoy Ghosh, Sr. Adv., Vijay Kasana, Mrs. Chetna Singh, Chirag
       Verma, Ankit Kumar, Ashish Tanwar, Mrs. Smita Bankoti, Devendra
       Singh, Ashish Sheoran, Karan Thakur, Ms. Diva Singh, Shubhranshu
       Padhi, Advs. for the Appellants.
       Avishkar Singhvi, Siddhant Sharma, Akash Alex, Praful Bhardwaj,
       P.S. Khurana, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Ram Naresh Yadav, Nitin
       Bhardwaj, Himanshu Sharma, Ram Niwas Sharma, Sandeep
       Singh, Mrs. Aditi Sharma, Arun Kumar, Lokesh Solanki, Advs. for
       the Respondents.
                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                    Order
       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 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.
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.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                       101

 Sukhmander Singh and Ors Etc. v. The State of Punjab and Ors Etc.


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, 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 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
102                                                            [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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, 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.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                       103

 Sukhmander Singh and Ors Etc. v. The State of Punjab and Ors Etc.


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 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. 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
104                                                        [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


                  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 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.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                       105

 Sukhmander Singh and Ors Etc. v. The State of Punjab and Ors Etc.


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 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
    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:
106                                                         [2024] 10 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports



             Criteria                 Earlier                Revised
       Written Examination          Qualifying                  50
            Interview                   20                      20
                                        5                       10
           Academic            (5 for 1st Division, 3 (10 for 1st Division, 6
          Qualifications       for 2nd Division & 2    for 2nd Division & 4
                                 for 3 Division)
                                       rd
                                                         for 3rd Division)
         Knowledge of
       Scientific Practical             15                      15
           Equipment
                                        5
       Experience (as on        (1 for 1 year, 2 for             5
       date of notification)   2 years, so on & so
                                       forth)
           Rural Areas                  5                        0
           Total Marks                  50                     100

23. 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).
24. As some of the shortlisted candidates may have become gainfully
    employed elsewhere or no longer interested in pursuing 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.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.                                                     107

 Sukhmander Singh and Ors Etc. v. The State of Punjab and Ors Etc.


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 directions, within eight weeks from today.
26. With the above order, the appeals are allowed. The parties to bear
    their own cost.

     Result of the Case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain