Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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