A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Sukhmander Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [2024] 10 S.C.R. 98 addressed irregularities in the recruitment process for the post of Laboratory Attendants by the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB). The Court scrutinized whether the criteria for selection were legally sustainable. The selection process was challenged for lack of transparency and the inclusion of subjective criteria, such as marks awarded for rural area residency. The Court upheld the Single Judge’s directive to revise the recruitment process while setting aside marks allocated for rural area residency. The revised process emphasized merit, efficiency, and fairness by capping interview marks and realigning other evaluative criteria. This judgment underscores adherence to principles of meritocracy and transparency in public employment.

Keywords: Selection Process, Recruitment Irregularities, Meritocracy, Public Employment, Rural Area Marks.

B) CASE DETAILS

i. Judgment Cause Title:
Sukhmander Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors.

ii. Case Number:
Civil Appeal Nos. 1511–1513 of 2021.

iii. Judgment Date:
11 September 2024.

iv. Court:
Supreme Court of India.

v. Quorum:
Hrishikesh Roy, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., and S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

vi. Author:
Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

vii. Citation:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 98.

viii. Legal Provisions Involved:

• Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India (Equality before law, Equal opportunity in public employment).
• Principles governing administrative transparency and merit-based appointments.

ix. Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
None specified.

x. Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
Service Law, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from recruitment for 31 Laboratory Attendant posts by PSEB. The selection process faced judicial scrutiny due to alleged lack of transparency, irregularities, and subjective criteria, particularly awarding marks for rural residency. A writ petition filed by unsuccessful candidates led to the annulment of the process by the Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Division Bench partially reversed this annulment but upheld the removal of rural residency marks. The Supreme Court examined these rulings and refined the recruitment criteria to restore fairness and objectivity in the selection process.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Advertisement and Initial Screening:
   The PSEB advertised 31 vacancies for Laboratory Attendants on 27 April 2011, with eligibility criteria of matriculation with Science and Punjabi. Out of 4,752 applicants, 1,952 were shortlisted for interviews based on a written test held on 28 September 2011.

2. Final Selection List:
   A final list of selected candidates was published on 4 April 2012. Unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions, alleging irregularities.

3. High Court Proceedings:
   The Single Judge annulled the selection process citing lack of transparency and fairness. The Division Bench later allowed partial relief, directing the Board to eliminate rural area marks and revise the list accordingly.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Was the selection process transparent and fair?
2. Could awarding marks for rural residency withstand judicial scrutiny?
3. Did the criteria for selection violate the principles of meritocracy?
4. Should the entire selection process be annulled or partially revised?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Transparency and Fairness:
   The appellants contended that the selection process lacked transparency, as no pre-determined criteria were disclosed for evaluating candidates.

2. Excessive Shortlisting:
   The decision to shortlist candidates 63 times the number of vacancies diluted merit and undermined efficiency.

3. Rural Residency Marks:
   Awarding marks for rural residency was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. Subjective Evaluation:
   Excessive weightage to subjective parameters such as interviews skewed the results in favor of less meritorious candidates.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Merit-Based Process:
   The respondents argued that the recruitment was conducted in good faith, and interviews were essential to assess suitability for the post.

2. Non-Arbitrariness:
   The rural residency marks aimed to incentivize candidates from underprivileged backgrounds and were not mala fide.

3. Over-Aged Candidates:
   Scrapping the entire process would prejudice candidates who were no longer eligible due to age.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 14: Ensures equality before the law.
2. Article 16: Mandates equality of opportunity in public employment.
3. Judicial Precedents: Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2013) SCC OnLine P&H 6980.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Transparency is a cornerstone of recruitment processes, and subjective criteria must be justified by objective standards.
2. Awarding marks for rural residency lacks constitutional validity under Articles 14 and 16.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Recruitment for public employment must balance efficiency and inclusivity.
2. Selection criteria should prioritize objective parameters like written tests.

c. Guidelines

1. Revise the merit list, capping candidates for interviews at five times the number of vacancies.
2. Remove rural residency marks.
3. Reassess candidates on a scale of 100 marks, with written tests carrying 50% weightage.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2013) SCC OnLine P&H 6980.
2. S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 552.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. Administrative guidelines on public recruitment.