Setting benchmarks for selection not change in eligibility: HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that prescribing benchmarks – such as minimum qualifying marks for various stages of a recruitment process – do not amount to altering eligibility conditions. It falls squarely within the domain of “selection procedure/criteria.”
Holding the benchmark prescriptions to be lawful if applied universally and transparently, Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj asserted, “The prescription of the benchmarks in a phased selection process does not tantamount to prescribing eligibility and is only selection procedure/criteria.”
Justice Bhardwaj was ruling on petitions challenging clauses of a public announcement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for the recruitment of Ayurvedic Medical Officers. The petitioners — who cleared screening test but failed to obtain 35 per cent qualifying marks in the subject knowledge test — had argued that the imposition of the benchmark was arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the Haryana Ayurvedic Department, Group-B Service Rules.
Rejecting the arguments, Justice Bhardwaj drew a clear legal distinction between eligibility and criteria.
“While ‘eligibility’ refers to the minimum qualifications or conditions that a candidate must satisfy in order to be considered for participation in the recruitment process, a ‘criteria’ pertains to the performance standards prescribed at different stages — such as written tests, interviews, or other evaluations — to assess a candidate’s relative merit.”
Justice Bhardwaj warned against the casual conflation of the two. “In a layman’s understanding, ‘eligibility’ prescribes ‘who can apply’ pursuant to an advertisement while a ‘criteria’ is the ‘prescription’ of a procedure which paves way for who gets selected from amongst the eligible candidates. The casual layman’s understanding, reflecting an interchangeable use of the expression “eligibility” and “criteria”, is not the way in which a court of law would apply the same,” the Bench asserted.
Justice Bhardwaj added that failure to meet eligibility would result in outright rejection, while failure to meet the criterion would mean non-selection on merit. The petitioners were never declared ineligible. They were allowed to participate, but were screened out for not meeting the benchmark in the second stage.
Justice Bhardwaj asserted “eligibility” could not be changed arbitrarily once the recruitment process had commenced. “But the position in law with respect to selection criteria is fluid”. The courts had upheld the modifications in the selection criteria provided it was reasonable, non-arbitrary, universally applied and sub-served larger public interest.
“The recruiting agency has discretion to devise a universal non-discriminatory methodology for short-listing meritorious candidates. Carrying out selection through a phased manner benchmark criterion applied universally cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and discriminatory or perpetrated by malice.”
Rejecting the notion that existing vacancies could justify relaxing merit thresholds, Justice Bhardwaj cautioned: “The existence of vacancies alone is no basis to relax the minimum qualifying criteria. No one can claim that the qualifying criteria ought to be given a go-by merely to accommodate people who do not possess/fulfil the minimum yardstick.”
Referring to the state’s duty, Justice Bhardwaj concluded: “Public appointment has to be made from amongst those who attain a minimum level of merit and such necessity should not be diluted by assuming that no harm would be caused to the standards of public duty owed by filling up vacant posts even with people who are severely lacking in minimum merit. “The State owes a public duty to provide a minimum standard in public appointment and larger public interest cannot be compromised for the wellbeing of few.”
Haryana Tribune