MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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