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 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 CeilingIn 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 AcquiescenceThe 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....

Can States Impose Higher Qualifications Beyond UGC Norms For Appointment Of College Professors? P&H High Court Larger Bench To Decide

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

Can States Impose Higher Qualifications Beyond UGC Norms For Appointment Of College Professors? P&H High Court Larger Bench To Decide

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers