Service law – Selection/appointment – Post of laboratory attendents – Selection process for 31 vacancies – 1,952 candidates shortlisted for interview after the written test – Publication of final select list – Challenge to, by the unsuccessful candidates – Single Judge annulled the selection process observing that the process was irregular and lacked transparency – However, the Division Bench held that the selection process was not mala fide or biased, a fresh list should be compiled by the Board, deducting 5 marks previously awarded to candidates belonging to rural areas – Sustainability: Held: In a recruitment process where there are only 31 posts up for grabs, subjecting an excessively large number of candidates,
63 times the number of vacancies to the interview stage, would inevitably lead to a situation where even those candidates, who may have performed very poorly in the written test, are granted an unfair shot at appointment and many more qualified candidates are potentially overlooked – Thus, limiting the number of candidates for the viva voce segment becomes essential for several reasons – It enhances the efficiency of the selection process by providing for a more thorough and fair evaluation of each candidate – By restricting the number of candidates, the process becomes more transparent and less susceptible to allegations of favouritism or bias – Thus, it ensures that only the most qualified candidates, based on an objective criterion, proceed to the stage of an interview, helping maintain the integrity of the process, upholding principles of meritocracy and reducing chances of oversight – Impugned judgment can be sustained only to the limited extent of eliminating marks awarded for the rural area criteria – Thus, the direction given by the Single Judge to commence the selection from the stage of written test, upheld – Candidates only up to five times the number of vacancies to be permitted to appear in the next segment of the recruitment test-interview – Candidates should be evaluated on a total of 100 marks, of which 50 marks would be awarded on the basis of a written examination – From the balance, 20 marks should be awarded on the basis of the candidate’s performance in an interview, 15 marks on the basis of knowledge of scientific practical equipment, 10 marks on the basis of academic qualifications and 5 marks on the basis of experience – Waiting list of 10 beyond the 31 notified vacancies to be prepared, if any vacancy remains unfilled from amongst the 31 in order of merit in the list, those vacancies can be filled up in order of merit from the waitlisted candidates – Thus, fresh selection exercise to be carried out in terms of the said directions. [Paras 17-20, 23-25]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.