The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered an independent, court-supervised scrutiny of the entire selection process under Punjab State Rural Livelihood Mission (PSRLM). The bench also took custody of the entire original recruitment record after observing that there was prima facie material indicating that the notified selection criteria might not have been adhered to.The directions came on a bunch of petitions against the state of Punjab, through Administrative Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, and other respondents. Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that the respondents had failed to produce any contemporaneous record demonstrating that marks under the heads of educational qualification and experience — components specifically provided for in the recruitment advertisement — had in fact been awarded. Holding that the omission “goes to the very root of the recruitment process”, the court said it raised serious concerns regarding the fairness, transparency and legality of the entire selection exercise.The petitioners had challenged the recruitment conducted pursuant to notice dated January 28, issued under PSRLM. The petitioners, among other things, contended that the prescribed selection process carried 100 marks — 70 for the written examination and the remaining 30 marks apportioned among interview, educational qualification and experience. But the respondents neither awarded nor disclosed the marks obtained by candidates under the said 30 marks.Referring to its earlier order directing production of the original recruitment record, Justuice Moudgil noted: “Prima facie, this court had noticed that although the advertisement contemplated evaluation under separate heads, namely, written examination, interview, educational qualification and experience, the result declared by the respondents did not disclose the marks awarded under the latter components.”Justice Moudgil asserted the selection notice merely reflected the aggregate marks without indicating the head-wise allocation, thereby depriving the candidates of any opportunity to verify the correctness of the assessment.“This court had also noticed that the result/selection notice was not duly authenticated by any competent authority by way of signature or official seal. Consequently, the respondents were directed to produce the complete original recruitment record before this court,” Justice Moudgil asserted.Upon examining the original recruitment record produced before it, the court recorded that the evaluation record itself had been maintained only in the format of 70 marks for the written examination and 10 marks for the interview, without reflecting any separate assessment or allocation of marks under educational qualification and experience, despite the advertisement specifically assigning 10 marks each to those components.The high court further noted that the respondents failed to point out any contemporaneous material demonstrating that marks under the heads of educational qualification and experience were in fact awarded, when specifically queried about the marks awarded to one of the petitioners.“The inability of the respondents to produce any such record, despite the specific query of this court, lends further credence to the prima facie apprehension that the notified selection criteria may not have been adhered to,” the bench observed.Holding that a detailed examination of the original record had become imperative, Justice Moudgil ordered: “The entire original recruitment record produced before this court is taken into custody and is handed over to the Registrar (Judicial) of this court.”Looking at the “bulkiness of the record”, Justice Moudgil added the court was “persuaded that in the interest of justice, the entire selection record ought to be subjected to an independent and comprehensive scrutiny by a Committee under the supervision of this court”.Accepting the state’s suggestion that two departmental officers be associated with the exercise, the high court constituted a committee headed by advocate Vishal Sharma as amicus curiae, assisted by advocate Anjali Singh, and othersThe committee was directed to scrutinise the application forms of the candidates to ascertain whether they were accompanied by all requisite documents relating to educational qualifications and experience forming the basis for award of marks. It would also verify the issuing authorities of experience certificates to ascertain whether they were issued by recognised institutes and were validly taken into consideration for awarding marks. Further, it will examine the marks awarded under the heads of written examination, educational qualification and experience, and prepare a tabulated statement reflecting the marks obtained by candidates under each head separately.“The committee shall undertake the exercise under the direct supervision of this court and place its report before this court in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing. For further consideration, to be taken up on July 31,” the bench asserted before parting with the order.