No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection for Punjab Laboratory Attendants; Eliminates Rural Area Marks

28 September 2024 3:54 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India in Sukhmander Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. ordered a fresh selection process for 31 Laboratory Attendant posts in Punjab. The Court directed the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) to re-evaluate candidates after finding irregularities in the previous selection process, including an arbitrary award of marks for rural residency and the absence of a fixed selection criterion before the interviews.

The Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) had advertised for 31 vacancies of Laboratory Attendants in April 2011, requiring candidates to have passed 10th grade with science and Punjabi as subjects. A preliminary written exam shortlisted 1952 candidates, who were called for interviews based on a cut-off score of 33.3%. However, many unsuccessful candidates challenged the final selection list from April 2012, claiming the process lacked transparency and fairness.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s Single Judge initially annulled the entire selection process in 2012, citing irregularities, including an arbitrary shortlisting method. The decision was challenged, and in 2016, the Division Bench reinstated the selection list with minor modifications.

The Supreme Court raised serious concerns over the lack of a pre-decided selection criterion. The Court noted that the criteria for selecting candidates, including awarding marks for rural residency and experience, were adopted only after the interviews had begun. Additionally, it criticized the process of inviting 63 times the number of candidates relative to the vacancies, deeming it excessive and prone to bias.

“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”​.

The Court ordered the PSEB to conduct a fresh selection exercise, limiting the number of candidates to five times the number of vacancies based on written exam performance. The revised evaluation will assign 50% of the marks to the written test, 20% to the interview, and the remaining 30% to qualifications, practical knowledge, and experience.

The marks for rural residency were declared legally impermissible, following the precedent set by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Abhishek Rishi vs. State of Punjab​.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and directed the PSEB to prepare a fresh merit list, ensuring transparency and fairness in the revised selection process. The Court also provided for a waiting list of 10 candidates, should any vacancies remain unfilled.

Date of Decision: 11th September 2024

Sukhmander Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Punjab & Ors.

Latest Legal News