RESTRICTING CANDIDATES FOR INTERVIEW IS NECESSARY TO ENHANCE TRANSPARENCY IN THE SELECTION PROCESS: SUPREME COURT
Category: Public & Regulatory
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
BACKGROUND
Herein, the bench comprising of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Justice SVN Bhatti, had set aside the Order given by the Division Bench of the High Court, that had approved the Punjab School Education Board to invite around candidates who were 63 times the number of vacancies present, for the interview. It was ordered by the Court that, the candidates to an extent of 5 times the number of vacancies must be shortlisted for participating in the next segment of the text, i.e., the interview stage.
KEY ASPECTS
In this case, subsequent to an advertisement issued on April 27, 2011 by the Punjab School Education Board, 31 vacancy posts for Laboratory Attendants were present. Further, it was also mentioned that the eligibility criteria for the same were that, the candidate must have qualified 10th standard, with Science and Punjabi as subjects. For the same, about 4,752 applications were received to apply for the post, and hence, as part of initial screened, a written test had been conducted on September 28, 2011. On the basis of this, a total of 1,952 candidates were shortlisted, determined as per a set benchmark cut-off score.
But, the unsuccessful candidates who were not selected approached the High Court, wherein the Single Bench directed the Punjab School Education Board for conducting a fresh recruitment process from the written stage, questioning the shortlisting of candidates who are 63 times the number of vacancies. Further, it was also held that, such process was unjustified as there had been no material placed on record or availability of the deliberations made by the Selection Committee, to show the criteria that was fixed for shortlisting of candidates for the interview stage.
Furthermore, it was also noted by the Single Judge that, there prevailed disparity among the candidates who were called for the interview, as some of them did not perform well for the written test, but still called for the interview. The Division Bench, interfering with the decision of the Single Bench, opined that, the selection process formulated by the Punjab School Education Board need not be disturbed and the calling for 63 times the number of posts for the interview stage did not constitute an error to vitiate the selection process completely.
The Supreme Court, however, affirming the decision of the Single Bench, observed the following points:
It was stated that the entire shortlisting procedure of the candidates was tailor made and not based on the candidate’s performance in the written test. The Selection Committee has based the scores on a benchmark eligibility cut-off of 33%, for which no deliberations in the form of minutes were made available to prove the fixation of such a criterion.
Further, it was stated that, the marks secured by candidates in the written test were not considered for such selection by the Punjab School Education Board. Also, in a recruitment process for which there are only 31 posts, calling 63 times of the available posts would lead to a situation where such candidates who have poorly performed in the written test, may get an unfair advantage at appointment, and potential candidates be overlooked.
Hence, it was opined that the number of candidates must be limited for enhancing the efficiency of selection process, providing a fair evaluation of each candidate, ensuring more transparency and less chances of any bias.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Supreme Court stated that, the candidates only up to 5 times the number of vacancies shall be permitted to appear for the interview stage. Further, it was also stated that, candidates must be evaluated for a total of 100 marks, out of which 50 marks would be awarded on the basis of written test, 20 marks for interview, 15 marks on the basis of knowledge of scientific practical equipment, 10 marks for academic qualification, and 5 marks on the basis of experience, and accordingly, the appeals were allowed.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: THANUJA ANTHIYUR ARAVINDAN
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
