AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Advertisement Nos.42 to 67 of 2024 dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-6), issued by Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) as well as the Memorandum dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-18), whereby revised orders prescribing the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff, including Librarians and Directors of Physical Education and Sports in Universities and Colleges, in terms of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, were issued. The petitioners have also sought quashing of the result of the Subject Knowledge Test (SKT) declared on 05.02.2026 (Annexure P-13) pertaining to the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in Commerce, conducted pursuant to Advertisement No.42 to 67 of 2024. Further, a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari has been sought to quash the illegal conditions of the selection process in the impugned advertisement No.44 of 2024 and to quash the act of respondents whereby the directions in Sanjay Singh and another vs U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (Annexure P-21) regarding moderation of the evaluation of marks in the evaluation of answer scripts in the subject knowledge test have been violated and further to quash the act and mode of conducting the selection process.
The petitioners have further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents:
(i)to constitute an independent expert committee for re-evaluation of the Subject Knowledge Test, on the ground that only a limited number of candidates belonging to the OSC, DSC and EWS categories have been declared qualified for the interview;
(ii)to grant relaxation from the general condition requiring candidates to secure a minimum of 35% marks in the Subject Knowledge Test, to quash the impugned result insofar as it denies such relaxation, and to direct preparation of a fresh category-wise merit list, followed by a fresh interview process, with consequential appointment of eligible candidates along with all attendant benefits, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Mohd. Yunus, 1994 (Sup2) SCC 55 (Annexure P-19);
(iv)to award appropriate grace marks to the petitioners having regard to their respective reserved categories, in light of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranav Verma and others v. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Annexure P-20); and
(v)to direct the nodal departments of the State to ensure effective implementation of reservation policies, including proper preparation, maintenance and monitoring of roster registers, and to establish an appropriate mechanism to supervise compliance by the respondent authorities.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, contended that the petitioners belong to various reserved categories, including Scheduled Castes and Economically Weaker Sections (Annexure P-10) and they had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) pursuant to Advertisement No.44 of 2024 (Annexure P-6). The respondent/Commission had made a uniform condition that everyone, whether from general category or reserved category, must secure 35% marks in the Subject Knowledge Test. According to the petitioners, this condition has rendered the reservation policy illusory and has defeated the very purpose of reservation guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 46 of the Constitution of India.
It is further contended that although a substantial number of posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes, Economically Weaker Sections and other reserved categories, however, only few candidates from these categories have qualified for the interview in terms of the impugned result (Annexure P-13). Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that some of the petitioners possess NET/JRF qualifications and majority of the candidates are pursuing Ph.D. degrees as discernible from Annexure P-15 but they have been excluded solely because of the uniform minimum qualifying requirement. It is argued that such an approach is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs Mohd. Yunus, 1994 (Sup2) SCC 55 (Annexure P-19), which recognize that suitable relaxations and concessions may be granted to reserved category candidates to make the policy of reservation effective.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also assailed the selection process on the ground of lack of transparency. He has argued that the respondent/Commission neither published the model answer key nor disclosed the evaluation process adopted for the Subject Knowledge Test, which is violative of the law laid down in Sanjay Singh and another vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another, 2007 (1) SCT 754 (Annexure P-21). He has further contended that the State Government and its nodal departments have failed to properly maintain roster registers and effectively implement the reservation policy in contravent of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and others vs State of Punjab and others, 1995(2) SCC 745. The UGC Regulations, 2018 (Annexure P-16) are binding and the delegation of the power to prescribe the selection criteria to the Haryana Public Service Commission through the Memorandum dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-18) is contrary to the said Regulations as well as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mandeep Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 INSC 834 (Annexure P-17).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has lastly contended that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranav Verma vs. Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, (2020) 15 SCC 377, wherein the Court disapproved an evaluation process resulting in a disproportionately high rate of failure due to unduly strict assessment. He has further submitted that the declared result had defeated the constitutional mandate of reservation under Article 16 of the Constitution of India as not even a single candidate belonging to the reserved categories was declared successful in the subjective examination.
Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5/Commission have opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No.5/Commission has submitted that the respondent/Commission is competent to prescribe a selection process comprising a Screening Test and a Subject Knowledge Test for shortlisting the candidates and assessing their merit. It is further submitted that the eligibility conditions, minimum qualifying marks and all stages of the selection process were clearly mentioned in the advertisement dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) and the petitioners have duly participated in the selection process without raising any objection at the relevant stage.
Learned counsel for respondent No.5/Commission has further submitted that the petitioners, having participated in the selection process with full knowledge of its terms and conditions and thereafter, failed to secure the prescribed minimum qualifying marks of 35% in the Subject Knowledge Test, cannot now be permitted to challenge the validity of the impugned advertisement, the selection criteria or the evaluation process.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
The issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra. This Court in CWP-19612-2026 titled as Renu Kumari Rohal vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 03.07.2026, dealt with a similar challenge to Advertisement No.43 of 2024 for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) involving an identical selection scheme under the same Memorandum dated 11.11.2022 and the framework of the UGC Regulations, 2018. The relevant observations recorded in the said judgment, are reproduced hereunder:
“7.However, it is no longer res integra that a candidate who knowingly participated in a selection process with full knowledge of the procedure, criteria, or the terms of the advertisement governing it cannot subsequently challenge the same merely because the outcome has turned out to be unfavourable. Tritely, 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. The underlying rationale is that a person cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate, by first accepting the rules of the game and taking a chance of success, and thereafter, upon being declared unsuccessful, turn around to assail the very process to which she had willingly subjected herself.
8.Having availed the opportunity to compete and taken the chance of selection, the petitioner is precluded from challenging the process merely because the result has not been favourable as permitting such challenges would undermine the finality and certainty of selection processes and encourage speculative litigation by unsuccessful candidates. Consequently, once a candidate has taken part in the examination or interview without demur, she/he is ordinarily estopped from questioning the validity of the selection process on grounds which were known or available to him at the time of participation. XX XX XX XX
17.Certainly, the State Government has modified certain provisions of the UGC Regulations to add extra layers of scrutiny i.e. the Screening Test and the Subject Knowledge Test. It is a well-settled principle in educational jurisprudence that the UGC Regulations, as also indicated by its full title i.e. 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, only prescribe the minimum standards that are required to be satisfied in order to recruit teachers in higher education institutions. The UGC Regulations seek to provide a mandatory baseline, the absence of which would leave students vulnerable to unqualified faculty and sub-standard education. By guaranteeing a basic level of academic rigour, the UGC also endeavours to establish a benchmark that would not only assist national and international mobility of students and professionals but also provide value to the degree earned. Such regulatory safeguards are critical to prevent exploitation in education and ensure that every citizen, regardless of their socio-economic background, is provided qualitative education that aids them in furthering their careers. In fact, in Mandeep Singh (supra), departure from the UGC Regulations proved to be fatal to the selection process only because the State of Punjab diluted the prescribed standards.
18.In that context, it is necessary to note that the UGC Regulations provide for a minimum benchmark and not a restrictive upper limit on institutional excellence. The higher education institutions are required to necessarily comply with these Regulations in order to avoid disenfranchisement as it serves as a proof of minimal operational viability required to justify their accreditation. However, the criteria laid down therein are the floor and not the ceiling as far as prescription of standards is concerned. Proactively exceeding the statutory basics by adopting enhanced models does not violate the regulatory framework, rather it fulfills the progressive spirit of the law and public policy objectives.” (emphasis added)
Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioners participated in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.44 of 2024 dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) with full knowledge of the eligibility conditions and the selection criteria, including the requirement of securing a minimum of 35% marks in the Subject Knowledge Test. Although they qualified the Screening Test, they failed to secure the prescribed qualifying marks in the Subject Knowledge Test. The present challenge has been raised only after the declaration of the result. Significantly, the petitioners have not laid any challenge to the Memorandum dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-18), which forms the basis of the impugned advertisement. After participating in the selection process without raising any objection, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the selection criteria after being declared unsuccessful.
The UGC Regulations, 2018 dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure P-16) prescribe the minimum qualifications and standards for recruitment. The State Government, vide Memorandum dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-18), adopted the said Regulations while prescribing an additional selection mechanism comprising a Screening Test and a Subject Knowledge Test to assess the comparative merit of candidates. Such additional tests do not reduce or violate the standards prescribed by the UGC Regulations rather, they provide an additional method for evaluating the performance of the candidates. The State is competent to prescribe higher standards, as long as the minimum standards prescribed by the UGC are not violated. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners in Mandeep Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable as the facts of that case are different. In that case, the recruitment process was contrary to the UGC Regulations whereas in the present case, the selection is being conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission in accordance with the applicable rules.
Furthermore, the reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgment in R.K. Sabharwal’s case (supra) regarding maintenance of roster registers is equally misplaced as no specific violation of the roster policy has been established in the present case. Likewise, the Government instructions dated 15.07.2014 (Annexure P-1) relating to reservation and the policy dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure P-5) providing 10% reservation to the Economically Weaker Sections do not advance the petitioners' case, since the reservation policy itself is not under challenge. The grievance raised is confined to the prescription of uniform qualifying marks in the Subject Knowledge Test.
Moreover, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus’s case (supra) (Annexure P-19) and Pranav Verma’s case (supra) (Annexure P-20) are also distinguishable as they deal with different factual matrix and do not lay down any absolute proposition that relaxation in qualifying marks must be granted in all cases.
In view of the foregoing discussions and the settled legal position, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned advertisement or the selection process conducted thereunder. The contentions raised by the petitioners are devoid of merit and are accordingly rejected. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.