Noticing an apparent conflict between two judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar has referred to a larger Bench the question whether state governments can prescribe qualifications and selection tests more rigorous than those envisaged under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations for appointment of Assistant Professors.
Reference to Larger Bench
The court, meanwhile, upheld Haryana's recruitment process and dismissed a petition challenging the selection process. The reference assumes significance as the larger Bench will now examine whether States are empowered to supplement the UGC's minimum eligibility framework by prescribing additional qualifications or introducing Screening Tests and Subject Knowledge Tests while recruiting Assistant Professors, and whether States are bound to adopt the UGC regulations in their entirety.
The two questions referred to the larger Bench are: “Whether the state government is empowered to prescribe higher qualifications, in addition to those prescribed under the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018, including stipulation of a Screening Test or Subject Knowledge Test; and whether the state government is legally bound to accept the UGC Regulations, 2018, in toto”.
Background of the Case
The Registry has been directed to place the matter before the Acting Chief Justice for listing the reference before an appropriate Bench. The controversy stemmed from an advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for recruitment to 123 posts of Assistant Professor. The petitioner contended that the recruitment mechanism adopted by the HPSC violated the UGC regulations.
Under the advertisement, the selection process comprised a qualifying screening test, followed by a subject knowledge test carrying 87.5 per cent weightage towards the final merit list and an interview carrying 12.5 per cent weightage. According to the petitioner, the UGC regulations envisage candidates being shortlisted on the basis of academic scores, research credentials and publications, with the interview carrying 100-per cent weightage.
Petitioner's Participation and Acquiescence
Justice Brar observed that the petitioner had admittedly participated in the recruitment process, cleared the screening test, but failed to secure the prescribed 35 per cent marks in the subject knowledge test before approaching the High Court. Rejecting the challenge on this ground, the court reiterated the settled legal principle that a candidate who knowingly participated in a selection process with full knowledge of its procedure could not subsequently challenge it merely because the outcome was unfavourable.
“Participation in the process without protest amounts to acquiescence, and the candidate is deemed to have waived the right to question the methodology or procedure adopted for selection,” Justice Brar observed. The Bench added that a candidate could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate by first accepting the rules of the game and taking a chance of success, and thereafter turn around to assail the very process to “which she had willingly subjected herself” upon being declared unsuccessful.
Court's Ruling on State's Power
On the merits, Justice Brar held that the State Government had merely supplemented the UGC regulations without diluting the minimum standards prescribed therein. "The impugned advertisement has not dispensed with the interview process or denied the manner in which it is supposed to be conducted; rather a test of qualifying nature followed by the subject knowledge test has been added to promote the cause of meritocracy."
Justice Brar added that the state government had "merely attempted to fulfill its duty to recruit the best possible educators for the benefit of the citizens", and that the selection process "only supplements the UGC Regulations, especially since it does not diminish the eligibility criteria laid down in the latter." Justice Brar further observed the multi-tiered scrutiny merely amounted to making the selection process more rigorous while maintaining the minimum benchmark provided in the UGC regulations.
Rejection of Petitioner's Argument
Rejecting the petitioner's argument that candidates satisfying the UGC norms should not be subjected to additional scrutiny, the court held that the contention "cannot be accepted by this Court." Justice Brar added it was the employer’s prerogative to recruit the best available talent and not merely those who satisfied the “base minimum”. Accordingly, the court held that the HPSC was "well within its rights to prescribe additional scrutiny by way of conducting a screening test and a subject knowledge test in addition to the interview."
However, noticing an apparent conflict between this view and that taken by a co-ordinate Bench in the Asha Rani case, Justice Brar referred the two legal questions for an authoritative determination by a larger Bench, while dismissing the present petition.
