Supreme Court Orders Fresh Investigation in Case of Alleged Property Dispute and Fraud; Transfer Petition Disposed    |     Vague Allegations of Improper Cross-Examination Insufficient for Recalling Witnesses: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order    |     Honorable Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings Invalidates the Dismissal Based on Identical Allegations: Allahabad HC    |     Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection for Punjab Laboratory Attendants; Eliminates Rural Area Marks    |     Entire Story of the Prosecution is a Piece of Fabrication: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in High-Profile Kidnapping Case    |     Madras High Court Overstepped in Directing Framing of Charges, Says Supreme Court; Stays Proceedings    |     Foreclosing Right to File Written Statement Without Serving Complaint Too Harsh: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Rash Driving Case; Compensation Reduced Due to Age and Health Factors    |     Prayers for Setting Aside Maintenance Order and Refund Not Maintainable Under Section 25(2) of Domestic Violence Act: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused on Grounds of Parity with Co-Accused and Prolonged Custody    |     Serious allegations of corruption demand thorough investigation Against Karnataka Bar Council Chairman:  Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash FIR    |     Probationers must be heard; a punitive action without inquiry is against natural justice: Punjab & Haryana HC Reinstates Judicial Officer    |     Refining Crude Soybean Oil is a Use of Goods Within the State, Attracting Entry Tax: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Overturned for Merely Better Views: Supreme Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeals Over Encroachment Claims Due to Improper Demarcation Report    |     Teasing by Children Cannot Be Considered Grave and Sudden Provocation Under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC: Gauhati High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Man Convicted of Murdering a 7-Year-Old Boy    |     ITC Blocking Under Rule 86A Cannot Exceed Available Balance in Electronic Credit Ledger: Delhi HC    |     Writ under Article 226 not maintainable when alternative remedies are available" – Delhi HC: Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Petition for FIR and Protection    |     Lack of Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Does Not Automatically Vitiate Proceedings: Calcutta HC    |     No Development Without Conveyance: Statutory Rights of Housing Society Prevail: Bombay High Court    |     Pecuniary Jurisdiction Based on Highest Valued Relief in Specific Performance Suit: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Delay in Sale Deed Registration After Full Payment Cannot Justify Denial of Auctioned Property: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Civil Judge Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear Suit Under Section 92 CPC; District Court is the Competent Forum: Allahabad High Court    |     Children are not only the assets of the parents but also of society: Kerala HC on Protests Involving Minors    |    

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

28 September 2024 10:37 AM

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