HC quashes Haryana Asst Prof recruitment, says criteria adopted violates UGC norms

The court also set aside an advertisement (No. 48) of 2024 issued by the HPSC and directed the respondents to initiate a fresh recruitment process strictly in accordance with the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018.

The petitions had been filed by candidates who had applied for the posts and cleared the screening test but failed to qualify the subject knowledge test conducted on August 17, 2025. They challenged the entire recruitment process as being contrary to the UGC Regulations.

‘Participation in process does not bar one from questioning its legality’

The High Court rejected the respondents’ contention that the petitioners could not challenge the process after participating in it. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar (2019), Justice Dahiya held that participation in a selection process does not bar candidates from questioning the legality of the procedure itself.

In the 31-page judgment, the court held that the UGC Regulations are mandatory and binding on state governments while making appointments to teaching posts in colleges and universities.

The court noted that Regulation 4.0 and Appendix II (Table 3B) of the 2018 Regulations specifically provide that candidates are to be short-listed for interview solely on the basis of academic scores derived from graduation, post-graduation, M.Phil./Ph.D., NET/SET qualifications, research publications, teaching experience and awards. The final selection, the regulations stipulate, must be based only on interview performance.

However, the HPSC advertisement had prescribed a three-stage recruitment process comprising a screening test of 100 multiple-choice questions with 25 per cent qualifying marks, a subject knowledge test carrying 150 marks with 35 per cent qualifying marks, and an interview carrying 12.5 per cent weightage.

Under the impugned process, final merit was to be prepared by giving 87.5 per cent weightage to the subject knowledge test and 12.5 per cent to the interview. The court held that this examination-based selection model was in direct conflict with the UGC Regulations. Justice Dahiya further ruled that the Haryana government could not introduce modifications diluting the UGC framework through its memorandum dated November 11, 2022.

The memorandum had adopted the UGC Regulations but simultaneously permitted the HPSC to follow a separate selection criteria for government colleges under the amended Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group-B Service Rules, 1986/2024.

The court held that the modifications introduced under Notes appended to Regulations 4.0, 5.1(V) and 6.0 were impermissible and illegal.

‘UGC Regulations binding in matters concerning standards of higher education’

It observed that the UGC Regulations derive statutory force from Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and are binding in matters concerning standards of higher education.

The judgment said that since education falls in the Concurrent List, central legislation would prevail over inconsistent state provisions under Article 254 of the Constitution.

The court also distinguished the Supreme Court ruling in Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2025), observing that Punjab had adopted the UGC Regulations in toto in that case. However, Justice Dahiya clarified that even where a State has not fully incorporated the regulations, it cannot bypass or dilute minimum standards prescribed by the UGC.

Senior Advocate DS Patwalia, who led the arguments for the petitioners assisted by advocate Sarthak Gupta among others, submitted that the recruitment process was void ab initio as it violated Regulations 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 of the UGC framework.

Appearing for the Haryana government, Additional Advocate General Rajni Gupta defended the state’s modifications and argued that the UGC Regulations were not automatically applicable in the absence of financial assistance from the Commission. She also submitted that the government had validly amended its service rules.

Disposing of all connected petitions, the High Court directed that the entire selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement No. 48 of 2024 for Assistant Professor (English) posts stands set aside.

The court ordered the respondents to begin a fresh recruitment process strictly in accordance with the UGC 2018 Regulations.