The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the recruitment process for 613 posts of assistant professor in English, emphasizing that "the quality of higher education depends upon the quality of teachers appointed." The decision came months after the Haryana Public Service Commission's (HPSC) recruitment for English assistant professors (college cadre) sparked controversy due to an unusually low pass percentage.
Court Ruling and Key Observations
The High Court held that the state "diluted" mandatory University Grants Commission (UGC) norms while framing the selection criteria. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, while allowing the petitions, stated that the UGC Regulations framed under the UGC Act are binding on all states and universities and cannot be selectively modified by state governments. "The UGC Regulations lay down minimum standards to ensure merit-based appointments," the court observed.
The court clarified that while states are free to prescribe standards higher than those fixed by the UGC, they cannot lower or dilute the minimum benchmarks laid down under central regulations. "The perceived authority of the state to adopt UGC Regulations with modifications has no legal foundation," the court noted, adding that the regulations are mandatory in nature and aimed at maintaining uniform standards in higher education across the country.
Controversy Over Low Pass Percentage
The recruitment came under scrutiny after less than 10% of candidates cleared the subject knowledge test, leaving 462 posts vacant despite thousands of aspirants appearing for the examination. Several unsuccessful candidates, including PhD scholars and UGC-NET/JRF qualifiers, questioned the transparency of the evaluation system and demanded access to answer sheets.
Around 2,000 candidates appeared for the descriptive subject knowledge test, but only 151 candidates managed to score the minimum qualifying marks of 35%, leaving most posts vacant. The petitioners argued that the recruitment process violated the UGC Regulations, 2018, which prescribe that candidates should be shortlisted on the basis of academic scores and selected through interview by a duly constituted selection committee.
Flawed Selection Process
HPSC adopted a three-stage selection process comprising a screening test, a subject knowledge test, and an interview. Under the system framed by the commission, the subject knowledge test carried 87.5% weightage in the final merit, while the interview accounted for only 12.5%. The petitioners contended that the entire process was contrary to the central regulations governing appointments in higher education institutions.
The court noted that Haryana issued a memorandum on November 11, 2022, introducing "modified" criteria for shortlisting and selection of assistant professors. The court found that the state replaced the UGC-prescribed academic assessment system with written examinations, thereby violating Regulations 4, 5, and 6 of the 2018 framework.
State's Arguments Rejected
The court rejected Haryana's stand that the state could frame its own recruitment criteria because the UGC Regulations were not mandatory unless the state received financial assistance from the commission. The state also argued that the recruitment process was already at an advanced stage and that results for several other subjects were already declared under the same selection pattern. However, the court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing the binding nature of UGC Regulations.
During the hearing, the petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in the Mandeep Singh case related to recruitment in Punjab colleges, where the apex court ruled that once a state adopts UGC Regulations, it cannot bypass the prescribed recruitment procedure.
Wider Implications
The judgment is expected to have wider implications as similar recruitment processes for other subjects were also conducted under the same policy framework adopted by the state government. The court has quashed the November 2022 memorandum as well as advertisement no 48/2024. The High Court directed the Haryana government to restart the recruitment process in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2018.
Rejecting the argument that candidates who participated in the process could not later challenge it, the court said participation in a recruitment exercise does not prevent candidates from questioning an illegal procedure.
