BATHINDA: After the staying the recruitment process for the posts of Pharmacy Officers till the next date of hearing, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed further proceedings in the selection process for the 41 posts of Block Program Managers and 44 posts of Cluster Coordinators under the Punjab State Rural Livelihoods Mission (PSRLM).Justice Sandeep Moudgil passed the order on Wednesday (order uploaded on Thursday) after noticing prima facie certain anomalies and ambiguities in the manner of awarding mark under different heads to the candidates who appeared in the examination.The order by single bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil has been made as per the report of the scrutiny committee headed by advocate Vishal Sharma formed by the court for scrutiny of the application forms and other records pertaining to the selection process. The report was submitted in the sealed cover which was opened in the court. The Bench had also ordered taking the entire original recruitment record in custody while observing that there was prima facie material indicating that the selection criteria might not have been adhered to.Earlier on August 10 a bench of Punjab and Haryana high court had stayed the process for the recruitment of Pharmacy Officer till September 17.In the order 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 issued on January 28, 2026, under the Punjab State Rural Livelihoods Mission (PSRLM) has submitted the report of the scrutiny committee in Court in a sealed cover”.“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 order read as.The case will now come up for further consideration on September 2, when the court is expected to consider the scrutiny committee’s report. There were three different petitions in the matter which have been clubbed.It was contended that the selection process carried 100 marks, 70 for the written examination and the remaining 30 marks apportioned among interview, educational qualification and experience with 10 marks each for interview, qualification and experience. It was further contended that the marks awarded out of 20 marks for qualification and experience were not disclosed.The court previously observed that the respondents had failed to produce any contemporaneous record demonstrating that marks under the heads of educational qualification and experience and that it raised concerns regarding the fairness, transparency and legality of the entire selection exercise.The court had also observed that upon examining the original recruitment record produced before it, evaluation record 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.
