The Punjab and Haryana High Court has referred to a larger Bench the critical legal question of whether state governments can prescribe qualifications and selection tests more rigorous than those mandated by the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations for the appointment of Assistant Professors. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while hearing a petition challenging the Haryana Public Service Commission's (HPSC) recruitment process, noted an apparent conflict between two previous judgments of the same court on this issue. The court, however, upheld the Haryana government's recruitment procedure and dismissed the candidate's plea, stating that the state had merely supplemented the UGC regulations without diluting minimum standards.
Background of the Case
The controversy originated from an advertisement issued by the HPSC for recruiting 123 Assistant Professor posts. The selection process included a qualifying screening test, a subject knowledge test carrying 87.5 per cent weightage in the final merit list, and an interview with 12.5 per cent weightage. The petitioner argued that this mechanism violated UGC regulations, which stipulate that shortlisting should be based on academic scores, research credentials, and publications, with the interview carrying 100 per cent weightage. The petitioner, who cleared the screening test but failed to secure the required 35 per cent in the subject knowledge test, challenged the process after an unfavorable outcome.
Court's Observations and Ruling
The court reiterated the legal principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of its procedure cannot subsequently challenge it due to an unfavorable result. On the merits, the court held that the government had not dispensed with the interview process or altered its conduct; instead, it added a qualifying test and a subject knowledge test to promote meritocracy. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that candidates satisfying UGC norms should not face additional scrutiny, stating that it is the employer's prerogative to recruit the best available talent, not just those meeting the base minimum.
Reference to Larger Bench
Despite upholding the HPSC process, Justice Brar noted an apparent conflict between this view and a coordinate Bench's decision in the Asha Rani case. Consequently, the following questions were referred to a larger Bench: whether states are empowered to supplement the UGC's minimum eligibility framework by prescribing additional qualifications or introducing screening tests and subject knowledge tests for Assistant Professor recruitment, and whether states are bound to adopt the UGC regulations in their entirety. The larger Bench's decision will have significant implications for recruitment processes across states.
Impact and Significance
This reference is crucial as it will clarify the extent of state autonomy in setting recruitment criteria for higher education faculty. According to the court, the HPSC advertisement did not deny the interview process but added layers to ensure merit-based selection. The outcome will affect how universities and public service commissions balance UGC guidelines with state-specific requirements. The case highlights the ongoing tension between centralized academic standards and decentralized recruitment needs.
