Summary
In a challenge to the selection of 31 Laboratory Attendants by the Punjab School Education Board, the Supreme Court held that the selection criteria, fixed only after the written test results were out, gave no weight to written-test marks and called 63 times the number of vacancies to interview, were arbitrary. It restored the Single Judge's approach, directing a fresh selection from the written-test stage with five candidates per vacancy and a revised 100-mark scheme.
Issues
- Whether the criteria on which the Board selected Laboratory Attendants could lawfully form the basis of selection and appointment.
- Whether calling candidates up to 63 times the number of vacancies for interview, on a bare qualifying cut-off without weight to written-test marks, vitiated the selection.
- What directions should govern a fresh selection.
Held
- Although the advertisement required shortlisting on merit, all candidates crossing a 33.3% cut-off were called for interview and the written-test marks were given no weight; the selection criteria were not found in any rules or instructions and were adopted only when the interviews were to begin, after the written test results had been declared. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- No minutes or other material showed that the Board fixed the selection criteria before the process began; the cut-off adopted midway was tailor-made and had no nexus with the object of shortlisting on merit. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Calling an excessively large number of candidates to interview for few posts lets candidates who did poorly in the written test compete while better-qualified candidates may be overlooked; limiting interview candidates on an objective criterion makes the evaluation more thorough, transparent and less open to favouritism. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The Division Bench judgment could be sustained only to the extent it removed the marks awarded for rural residence; the Single Judge's direction to restart the selection from the written-test stage, with candidates up to five times the vacancies called for interview, was approved. (¶¶ 11, 20, 21)
- Merit was to be reassessed out of 100 marks: 50 for the written examination, 20 for interview, 15 for knowledge of scientific practical equipment, 10 for academic qualifications and 5 for experience as on the notification date, with no marks for rural area, and a waiting list of 10 beyond the 31 vacancies. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeals allowed; the Board directed to carry out a fresh selection on the revised criteria, with a waiting list of 10, within eight weeks; parties to bear their own costs.