Courts Can't Expand Academic Eligibility For Assistant Professor Post By Declaring 'Allied' Subjects: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate has no immutable right to insist that a subject once recognised as allied or relevant to an advertised discipline must continue to be treated as such in a later recruitment.

It held that the identification of allied/relevant subjects is an academic and policy determination falling within the domain of the competent authority, which a writ court cannot replace with its own assessment of academic affinity.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,

“The fact that Biotechnology was recognised as an allied/relevant subject to Zoology in an earlier recruitment exercise, or that it bears substantial academic affinity with Zoology, does not create an immutable entitlement to its continued inclusion. Academic policy is not fossilised; the competent authority may, upon expert reconsideration and within the governing regulatory framework, revise the eligibility matrix.”

In Advertisement No. 4 of 2026 dated 8.9.2026 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission, Prayagraj, the subjects shown as allied/relevant to Zoology were Animal Science, Microbiology, Molecular and Human Genetics, Environmental Science, Fisheries and Life Sciences. Biotechnology was not among them, though the same advertisement recognised it as allied/relevant to Botany.

Petitioner, who holds an M.Sc. in Biotechnology with more than 55% marks from a UGC-recognised university and has qualified the CSIR-UGC NET in Life Sciences, sought quashing of the advertisement to that extent, along with the minutes of the Commission's meeting dated 12.8.2026 and the Government Order dated 20.8.2026. A connected petition by 48 petitioners sought the same relief for Biotechnology and Biochemistry.

It was pleaded that Biotechnology is an interdisciplinary branch of Life Sciences spanning both plant and animal sciences, that about 75% of the curriculum overlaps with Zoology, and that the UGC Regulations of 2018 permit a Master's degree in the concerned, relevant or allied subject, so that eligibility could not turn on nomenclature.

Petitioners relied on the Commission's own press release dated 31.8.2021 under Advertisement Nos. 50 and 51 of 2021, which had listed Biotechnology as allied/relevant to Zoology, a position later approved by the State Government, and on Manish Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and three others, where NET in Life Sciences was held relevant for appointment in Zoology.

Counsel for the Commission submitted that the criteria flowed from the recommendations of an Expert Committee which met on 12.8.2026 and were accepted by the State Government, the Commission having merely incorporated them, and that the petitioners could not assail the advertisement without challenging the underlying governmental determination.

Noting that the Supreme Court and the High Court have repeatedly cautioned against interference with expert opinion in academic matters, the Court held that its jurisdiction was confined to the legality of the decision-making process, and found no statutory infraction, manifest arbitrariness, mala fide or perversity in the State Government's determination.

“The question, therefore, is not whether another view is academically possible, but whether the view adopted by the competent authority is legally impermissible.”

Reliance on an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore permitting provisional participation in a similar recruitment was rejected, the Court holding that such an order is only an interim protective measure creating no substantive right. It held that the treatment of a subject as allied by another recruiting authority could not by itself render the prescription in Uttar Pradesh arbitrary.

On the departure from the earlier position, the Court held that a policy-making authority may review, modify or withdraw a policy upon reconsideration, and a policy having earlier benefited a class does not by itself establish hostile discrimination.

“A change in policy is not, by its very nature, an act of arbitrariness; what is constitutionally impermissible is a change founded upon irrelevant considerations, devoid of any rational basis, contrary to the governing law, or otherwise vitiated by a recognised ground of judicial review.”

Holding that nothing had been brought on record to show that the revised prescription was legally infirm, the Court found no illegality in the impugned Government Order and dismissed the writ petitions. It clarified that the petitioners remained free to place their grievance before the competent authority of the State Government for reconsideration of the policy on allied subjects, on which no opinion was expressed.