IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High 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.

Similar News