Irregularities in the Patent Examiner Recruitment Exams? DHC to Decide on the Allegations
Praharsh Gour
On June 16, the much awaited results of the three phrased exams for the recruitment of Patent Examiners were declared by the National Testing Agency (NTA). Originally meant to recruit 553 Examiners, as per the results, the NTA has “provisionally” recruited 550 Examiners who will then be subjected to another round of verification by the Controlling Authority. In a trifecta of controversies for both the NTA and the Patent Examiner recruitment process, we have now learnt that a writ petition (WP(C) 6743/2024) has been filed alleging irregularities in the main exams.
The Trifecta of Controversies
On the heels of similar allegations of irregularities in the 2024 National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) and the June 2024 cycle of the University Grants Commission- National Eligibility Test (UGC-NET), with these allegations concerning recruitment of Group A officers, the NTA finds itself in deeper water. Speaking specifically about the Patent Examiner recruitment process, our readers will recall that the recruitment process has been a bumpy ride and was marred by controversy right from the get-go. First, the organizing body was suddenly changed from the Quality Council of India to the NTA overnight, after the preliminary exams (see here and here). Then, it was alleged that the exams wererescheduled for a handful of participants owing to confusion surrounding admit cards. Subsequently, a separate writ petition was filed by some of the candidates seeking permission to file a detailed representation before the NTA (Please note that the High Court order dated March 13, does not state what are the grievances of the petitioner and I wasn’t able to find any order or document stating what finally happened with this representation. Did the NTA pay heed to it? Or dismissed it completely? In case any reader would know, please feel free to drop a comment below.)
On the Locus to Challenge the Recruitment Process
Coming to the present writ petition, as explained in the order dt. May 10, the petitioners sought time to file additional documents and affidavits to substantiate the allegations of irregularities. The Court observed that some of the petitioners had filed the petition after being unsuccessful in the main exams (conducted in January and February) and no documents were placed on the record to show any irregularity. The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, to observe that unsuccessful candidates cannot be heard to challenge the process of examination subsequently. Noting the odds to be against the petitioner, the Court still granted an opportunity to place on the record better documents and additional affidavits. The matter was listed for July 15, 2024, however, as per the June 12 order the petitioners have requested for an early hearing. The Court issued notice to the NTA, posting the matter today before the vacation bench.
The Court’s direction granting an opportunity to place additional documents on record must be appreciated, considering the wider public interest involved in the matter. Although, I think that some of the observations in the short order, especially the one stating the odds to be stacked up against the petitioners, seem a bit hasty. First, the Court itself observed that only some of the petitioners were found to be unsuccessful. Therefore, even if we apply the Court’s subsequent logic stating unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge the recruitment process once they have partaken in it, there would still be some petitioners who would not have participated or have been successful in the exam. Secondly, the Court’s interpretation of the Ashok Kumar case seems a bit generalized. In that case, the Supreme Court had estopped unsuccessful candidates from challenging the recruitment process after taking part and subsequently failing it. However, the Court’s finding cannot be cited against a challenge alleging irregularities in the recruitment process. Importantly, the High Court seems to have overlooked the observation in para 14 of the Supreme Court decision, wherein the Court categorically held that its decision on estopping unsuccessful candidates can be distinguished from the cases alleging glaring illegalities in the procedure, following from the decision in Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj.
Depending on what the petitioners submit and the relevant counter by the NTA the Court will eventually decide on the legality of the recruitment process. This not only leaves the fate of the 550 freshly recruited examiners in somewhat of a limbo but can also jeopardize the legitimacy of the eventual recommendations/ reports passed by these officers, thus affecting the functioning of the Patent Office. This controversy also adds another reason for having a more concrete approach towards appointment of patent examiners, an issue which has been extensively discussed previously here andhere. Hopefully, just like its decision to form a panel to improve functioning of the NTA, these controversies surrounding this cycle of the patent examiner recruitment process will also nudge the authorities to look into the process of recruitment of examiners and come up with concrete solutions.
H/t to Dr. K. S. Kardam for his Linkedin post on this development and an anon reader for pointing us to it.
- Please click here to view the post on SpicyIP and leave a comment.