Can States Impose Higher Qualifications Beyond UGC Norms For Appointment Of College Professors? P&H High Court Larger Bench To Decide
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an Advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for recruitment to 123 posts of Assistant Professor (Chemistry, College Cadre), holding that the additional Screening Test and Subject Knowledge Test prescribed by the State did not violate the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an Advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for recruitment to 123 posts of Assistant Professor (Chemistry, College Cadre), holding that the additional Screening Test and Subject Knowledge Test prescribed by the State did not violate the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers) Regulations, 2018. [2026 LL (PH) 239]
However, the Court referred two questions to a larger Bench in view of an apparent conflict with a Co-ordinate Bench's earlier ruling in Asha Rani and others v. State of Haryana and others, which had struck down the same 35% cut-off in the Subject Knowledge Test as arbitrary.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar framed the following questions:
(i) Whether the State Government is empowered to prescribe higher qualifications, in addition to those prescribed in 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 Screening Test/Subject Knowledge Test?
(ii) Whether the State Government is legally bound to accept 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 in toto?
UGC Regulations Lay Down A Floor, Not A Ceiling
In his judgment, Justice Brar opined 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, the bench added.
The petitioner, Renu Kumari Rohal, had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) pursuant to the impugned advertisement, which prescribed a three-stage selection process: (i) a qualifying Screening Test (25% cut-off), (ii) a Subject Knowledge Test of 150 marks with a 35% cut-off, carrying 87.5% weightage in the merit list, and (iii) an Interview carrying the remaining 12.5% weightage.
Rohal cleared the Screening Test but scored 52 marks in the Subject Knowledge Test, half a mark short of the required 52.5 (35% of 150) and was declared unsuccessful. She approached the High Court contending that this entire testing mechanism was contrary to the UGC Regulations, which envisage only shortlisting on academic score/research followed by a 100%-weightage interview, without any written examination.
It was also her case that the State Government's memo dated 11.11.2022 — which adopted the UGC Regulations but modified Clauses 5.1(v) and 6.0 to hand HPSC the power to devise selection criteria (bypassing the Selection Committee contemplated under the Regulations) was itself contrary to the binding character of the UGC Regulations.
The Court framed four issues for: (i) Whether a challenge to the advertisement by an unsuccessful candidate is maintainable; (ii) Whether the petitioner's prayer can be examined without a challenge to the memo dated 11.11.2022; (iii) Whether the Screening Test/Subject Knowledge Test violates the UGC Regulations; and (iv) Whether the State can prescribe qualifications more rigorous than the UGC Regulations.
Participation Without Protest Amounts To Acquiescence
The Court held that a candidate who takes part in a selection process with full knowledge of its terms, and takes a chance of success, cannot turn around and challenge the very process upon being declared unsuccessful. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mohit Kumar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1125 which distinguished and clarified Meeta Sahai.
The Court noted that a challenge survives participation only where the illegality could not have been foreseen at the time of taking part in the process, or where it involves a breach of Articles 14/16.
Since the petitioner herself claimed to already satisfy the UGC eligibility norms and had the "knowledge, reason and opportunity" to challenge the advertisement at the threshold stage itself, the alleged illegality could not be treated as unforeseeable. No grievance was even raised at the Screening Test stage, where she had succeeded.
On The Unchallenged Memo
The Court held that since the vires of the memo dated 11.11.2022 — which had empowered HPSC to fix the selection criteria — were never assailed, it had to be presumed that the petitioner accepted it as it stood. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench ruling in Dhani Ram Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, 2005 (1) SCT 571 (per Khehar, J., as he then was), and on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Rajasthan v. Sanyam Lodha, (2011) 13 SCC 262, for the proposition that a court ought not to read down or interfere with a rule/executive instruction that has not itself been put in issue.
The Screening Test/Subject Knowledge Test vis-à-vis UGC Regulations
On the substantive question, the Court held that the UGC Regulations of 2018 prescribe only a minimum benchmark for appointment of teachers, not an upper ceiling on institutional rigour.
States and recruiting bodies remain free to prescribe additional or higher qualifications so long as the UGC's baseline eligibility norms are not diluted. The Court distinguished the present case from Mandeep Singh, where the Punjab Government's departure from the UGC framework had diluted the prescribed standards — the opposite of what Haryana had done here, it added.
"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 bench said.
UGC Regulations - Safeguard To Prevent Exploitation In Education
The Court highlighted that, "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."
The Court relied on the Constitution Bench ruling including Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 120, and on State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104, to hold that additional or higher qualifications prescribed by the State under Entry 25 of List III do not offend Entry 66 of List I so long as they do not conflict with or dilute the Central norms.
Since the advertisement did not do away with the interview or dilute UGC eligibility criteria, but merely added a Screening Test and Subject Knowledge Test as extra layers of scrutiny, the Court held that HPSC's selection process supplemented rather than supplanted the UGC Regulations, and was not repugnant to them under Article 254.
The Court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Acting Chief Justice of the Court for listing the reference before an appropriate Bench.
Title: Renu Kumari Rohal v. State of Haryana and others
Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Nain, DAG, Haryana.