The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the Haryana Public Service Commission's introduction of minimum qualifying marks for the interview stage in the recruitment of Assistant Professors for Government Medical Colleges, holding that a recruiting authority cannot alter eligibility criteria after the selection process has commenced, particularly once the list of shortlisted candidates already stands published.

Faulting the timing and effect of the change, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that the Commission "cannot afford such doubts regarding its credibility as Caesar's wife must remain above all suspicion."

"Merely 06 days before the interview process was scheduled to commence, has cast an air of doubt around the methodology adopted by the respondent-HPSC. Being a State-run recruiting agency, the respondent-HPSC cannot afford such doubts regarding its credibility as Caesar's wife must remain above all suspicion," the judge said.

The Director General Medical Education and Research, Haryana (DGMER) advertised 189 posts of Teaching Faculty (Assistant Professor) in Super Speciality and Broad Speciality disciplines on 31.05.2022. The prescribed scheme awarded 75 marks on a detailed pre-merit academic criteria and 25 marks for interview, with no minimum qualifying threshold mentioned for either component. A corrigendum dated 27.09.2022 made no change to this scheme.

The two main petitioners, doctors working as Senior Residents at PGIMS, Rohtak, applied respectively for posts in Orthopaedics and Anesthesiology under the BCA category, scored 44 and 40 marks on the pre-merit criteria, and were called for interview by announcements dated 07.12.2022 and 08.12.2022, with interviews scheduled for 19.12.2022 and 20.12.2022.

On 13.12.2022, six days before interviews were to begin, and after the shortlist was already public — HPSC issued an announcement prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the interview: 50% for the general category and 45% for reserved categories. Both petitioners appeared for interview but failed to clear this newly introduced threshold. The result declared on 23.12.2022 excluded them, and their representations went unanswered.

Senior Advocates for the petitioners, led by Mr. Akshay Jindal, argued that no minimum marks for interview had been prescribed either in the original advertisement or in the shortlisting announcements, and that HPSC had thereby changed the rules of the game mid-process, contrary to K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008), Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, 2008, and Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala (2023).

It was pointed out that against 189 posts only 90 candidates were called for interview, and in the BCA category only one candidate had reached this stage for each of the two posts in question, making the academic pre-merit criteria, not the interview, the more meaningful measure of a post-graduate doctor's suitability.

HPSC, represented by Senior Advocate Gaurav Chopra among others, submitted that the interview remained worth 25 marks as originally advertised and that no fresh criterion had been "added", only a minimum qualifying threshold introduced to maintain competence standards, since candidates were otherwise assessed solely on academic qualifications.

Weightage is not the same as a qualifying threshold

After hearing the submissions, the Court drew a sharp distinction, "While the weightage of a stage pertains to how much a component counts towards the aggregate, the qualifying threshold answers a different question i.e. whether a candidate can be eliminated from consideration, regardless of aggregate merit."

The interview remained worth 25 marks in name, but HPSC's announcement altered eligibility itself, attempting, in the Court's words, "to nullify the effect of the marks obtained in terms of the carefully curated pre-merit criteria."

Who owns the selection scheme

The Court held that the scheme had been laid down by DGMER as employer, HPSC being "merely engaged for conducting interviews", with nothing on record indicating it was authorised to modify the criteria. Relying on Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, the Court reiterated that it is the employer who is best placed to decide the qualifications and standards a candidate must meet.

Arbitrariness and timing

Invoking Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020), that where the rule of law disappears, "we are ruled not by laws but by the idiosyncrasies and whims of those in power" — the Court held that introducing an eligibility-limiting condition six days before interviews were to commence, with the shortlist already known to HPSC, "cast an air of doubt around the methodology adopted."

While no direct evidence of mala fide was found, the Court held the surrounding circumstances raised concern, particularly since the modification would exclude candidates from the zone of consideration on interview marks alone, contrary to a scheme that contemplated selection on aggregate merit.

The Court quashed the announcement dated 13.12.2022 and set aside the result of 23.12.2022 to the extent it excluded candidates for failing to meet the newly introduced qualifying marks.

HPSC was directed to re-evaluate and finalise the selection afresh, strictly on the criteria originally stipulated in the advertisement, aggregate merit out of 100 marks (75 for pre-merit academic credentials, 25 for interview), without any minimum qualifying cut-off for the viva voce.

Case Title: Dr. Surender Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others, and connected matters

Click here to read order