Selection Committee Can't Use Interview As 'Veto' To Declare Candidate Unsuitable When No Minimum Marks Prescribed: P&H High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that where a recruitment advertisement prescribes a composite, multi-stage selection scheme without any minimum qualifying marks for the interview, a Selection Committee cannot declare a candidate "Not Found Suitable" solely on the basis of the interview, disregarding his merit under the other notified parameters.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that such an exercise amounts to introducing, at the assessment stage, a disqualification "conspicuously absent from the advertisement," and is vulnerable "not merely on the ground of an irrational assessment, but on the more fundamental ground of jurisdictional transgression."
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a candidate for the post of Assistant under Advertisementissued by Chaudhary Bansi Lal University, Bhiwani. Of the eight posts advertised, one was earmarked for the BC-B category, against which the petitioner applied.
The notified selection criteria allocated 100 marks across six components: Computer Typing (35), General Aptitude Test (30), Academic Qualifications (10), Work Experience (5), Domain Knowledge (8) and Interview (12). A merit list based on Criteria A to D was to be prepared first, after which shortlisted candidates would be called for interview.
The petitioner, a graduate with 10 years of experience against the required five, secured 35.55 marks under Criteria A to D and claimed to be the most meritorious candidate in the BC-B category. Three candidates were called for interview for the single BC-B post. However, the petitioner was awarded no marks in either domain knowledge or interview and was declared "Not Found Suitable." The post remained vacant, as none of the three candidates was recommended.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the terms of an advertisement are binding on both candidate and employer, and that in the absence of minimum qualifying marks for the interview, excluding the petitioner on that basis alone was arbitrary and contrary to Manoj Manu v. Union of India, (2013).
The University contended that the Selection Committee had duly assessed the petitioner's suitability and found him unfit, and that mere participation in a selection process creates no indefeasible right to appointment.
The Court noted that the selection process was "neither exclusively nor predominantly interview-based," with 80 marks allocated to Criteria A to D and only 20 to domain knowledge and interview combined. It found that the advertisement neither prescribed minimum qualifying marks for these two components nor reserved any power with the Selection Committee to declare a candidate unsuitable on that basis alone, irrespective of marks secured elsewhere.
Relying on Manoj Manu, the Court reiterated that once a selection process has begun, the recruiting authority cannot depart from its notified criteria, and any such departure amounts, in substance, to an impermissible rewriting of the rules of the game. The discretion of a Selection Committee to assess suitability, it held, cannot extend to disregarding the weightage expressly assigned to different components, or to giving one component a predominance "which the advertisement itself had deliberately denied to it."
The Court also noted that some posts under the same process had been filled while the post in question was kept vacant, and held that this, viewed in light of comparative merit, fell foul of S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) .
Referring to its own recent decision in Dr. Surender Singh v. State of Haryana (CWP-751-2023, decided on 19.08.2026), which drew on K. Manjushree, Hemani Malhotra, Tej Prakash Pathak, Salam Samarjeet Singh and Rojer Mathew, the Court drew a distinction between weightage and a qualifying threshold. Weightage determines a stage's contribution to aggregate merit, while a qualifying threshold eliminates a candidate regardless of aggregate merit, and such a threshold cannot be introduced unless the advertisement expressly authorises it.
Clarifying the scope of its interference, the Court said it was not substituting its own assessment for that of the Selection Committee. Rather, the Committee had "failed to exercise its discretion within the confines of the selection criteria." By awarding zero marks and recording the petitioner as unsuitable, the Committee had effectively converted domain knowledge and interview into "a de facto qualifying or veto stage" and rendered the other 80 marks nugatory.
The Court further held that the action violated Article 14. Referring to Surender Singh, it observed that "arbitrariness and fair play are sworn enemies," and that the absence of a reasoned basis for the nil award, combined with exclusion on an un-notified threshold, constituted an arbitrary and unguided exercise of power.
Allowing the petition, the Court directed the University to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant in light of its findings and pass an appropriate order within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. If appointed, the petitioner will be entitled to notional benefits from the date on which the other selected candidates joined, but to remuneration only from his actual date of joining.
Title: Jaibir Singh v. Chaudhary Bansi Lal University Bhiwani through its Registrar and another
Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sunanda, Advocate and Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate for the respondents.