How Does the Supreme Court's Ruling on Limiting Interview Candidates Enhance Efficiency and Transparency in the Selection Process?

In a significant ruling aimed at improving transparency and efficiency in the recruitment process, the Supreme Court has directed the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB) to initiate a fresh selection process for Laboratory Attendants, starting from the written test stage. This decision comes in response to concerns regarding irregularities in the shortlisting of candidates for the interview phase.

The bench, consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti, overturned a previous decision by the High Court's Division Bench, which had upheld PSEB’s practice of inviting candidates up to 63 times the number of available vacancies for interviews.

Background of the Case

The matter arose from an advertisement issued by PSEB on April 27, 2011, for 31 vacancies for Laboratory Attendants. Applicants were required to have completed the 10th standard with Science and Punjabi. Out of 4,752 applicants, a preliminary written test conducted on September 28, 2011, resulted in 1,952 candidates being shortlisted based on a predetermined cut-off score.

Unsuccessful candidates challenged the shortlisting process in the High Court, leading to a Single Bench ruling that criticized the PSEB for inviting an excessively large number of candidates—63 times the vacancies—without providing sufficient justification or documented criteria for this selection.

Supreme Court Findings

The Supreme Court upheld the Single Bench's decision, emphasizing that the selection committee's shortlisting lacked proper foundation. The court noted that the committee had failed to use the candidates' written test scores effectively, as it set a mid-process eligibility cut-off of 33%, without available minutes from meetings to support this decision.

The court remarked that an excessively high number of candidates being invited for interviews compromised the fairness of the recruitment process, allowing those with poor written test performances to participate while potentially overlooking more qualified candidates.

To enhance the integrity of the selection process, the Supreme Court mandated that only five times the number of vacancies should be shortlisted for the interview stage. The court stated, “Limiting the number of candidates for the viva voce segment is essential for several reasons. Firstly, it enhances the efficiency of the selection process by allowing for a thorough and fair evaluation. Secondly, it minimizes allegations of favoritism or bias, ensuring that only the most qualified candidates proceed to the interview.”

Implementation of New Criteria

The court outlined a new evaluation framework, stating that candidates should be assessed based on a total of 100 marks, with 50 marks derived from the written examination. Additional marks would be allocated as follows: 20 marks for interview performance, 15 marks for knowledge of scientific equipment, 10 marks based on academic qualifications, and 5 marks for relevant experience as of the notification date (April 27, 2011).

Moreover, the court ordered the preparation of a waiting list of 10 candidates beyond the 31 vacancies to fill any unfilled positions based on merit.

The Supreme Court has mandated that the entire recruitment exercise must be completed within eight weeks from the date of judgment.

Conclusion

This ruling underscores the necessity for transparent and fair selection processes in public recruitment, reinforcing the principle of meritocracy. The Supreme Court's intervention serves as a vital reminder of the importance of adhering to objective criteria in candidate selection, ensuring that the recruitment process remains efficient and equitable.

Case Title: Sukhamander Singh and Others vs. The State of Punjab and Others, Civil Appeal No(s). 1511-1513/2021.