The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed further proceedings in a selection process under the Punjab State Rural Livelihoods Mission (PSRLM). Justice Sandeep Moudgil passed the order after noticing “prima facie certain anomalies and ambiguities” in the manner of awarding marks to candidates who appeared in the examination.The order came less than a fortnight after Justice Moudgil ordered an independent, court-supervised scrutiny of the entire selection process. The Bench had also ordered taking the entire original recruitment record in custody after observing that there was prima facie material indicating that the notified selection criteria might not have been adhered to.At the onset, Justice Moudgil observed: “Vishal Sharma, advocate, head of the committee constituted by this court for scrutiny of the application forms and other records pertaining to the selection process pursuant to public notice dated January 28 issued under the Punjab State Rural Livelihoods Mission (PSRLM) has submitted the report of the scrutiny committee in Court in a sealed cover,” the court said.After perusing the report, Justice Moudgil ordered: “The further proceedings in the selection process shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing as prima facie certain anomalies and ambiguities have been noticed in the manner of awarding marks under different heads to the candidates, who appeared in the said examination.”The case will now come up for further consideration on September 2, when the court is expected to consider the scrutiny committee’s report and the issues arising from the award of marks. The directions came on a bunch of petitions against the State of Punjab, through administrative secretary, department of rural development panchayat, and other respondents.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.Justice Moudgil, on the previous date of hearing, 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.Justice Moudgil had added: “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 had 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 had 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.