Noticing an apparent conflict between two judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar has referred to a larger Bench the question whether state governments can prescribe qualifications and selection tests more rigorous than those envisaged under the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations for appointment of Assistant Professors. The court, meanwhile, upheld Haryana’s recruitment process and dismissed a petition challenging the selection process.
The reference assumes significance as the larger Bench will now examine whether states are empowered to supplement the UGC’s minimum eligibility framework by prescribing additional qualifications or introducing screening tests and subject knowledge tests while recruiting Assistant Professors, and whether states are bound to adopt the UGC regulations in entirety.
The controversy stemmed from an advertisement by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for recruitment to 123 posts of Assistant Professors.
The petitioner contended that the recruitment mechanism violated the UGC regulations. Under the advertisement, the selection process comprised a qualifying screening test, followed by a subject knowledge test carrying 87.5 per cent weightage towards the final merit list and an interview carrying 12.5 per cent weightage. According to the petitioner, the UGC regulations envisage candidates being shortlisted on the basis of academic scores, research credentials and publications, with the interview carrying 100 per cent weightage.
The court observed that the petitioner had cleared the screening test, but failed to secure the prescribed 35 per cent in the subject knowledge test. It reiterated the legal principle that a candidate who participated in a selection process with full knowledge of its procedure could not subsequently challenge it because the outcome was unfavourable.
On the merits, it held that the government had merely supplemented the UGC regulations without diluting the minimum standards prescribed therein. “The impugned advertisement has not dispensed with the interview process or denied the manner in which it is supposed to be conducted; rather a test of qualifying nature followed by the subject knowledge test has been added to promote the cause of meritocracy.”
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that candidates satisfying the UGC norms should not be subjected to additional scrutiny, the court held that the contention “cannot be accepted by this Court”.
It added that it was the employer’s prerogative to recruit the best available talent and not merely those who satisfied the “base minimum”. However, noticing an apparent conflict between this view and that taken by a coordinate Bench in Asha Rani case, the legal questions were referred to a larger Bench.