Haryana can prescribe higher qualifications than UGC: High Court

The petition was filed by Renu Kumari Rohal, who had sought quashing of the Haryana Public Service Commission’s (HPSC) advertisement issued in August 2024 and the subsequent selection process for 123 Assistant Professor (College Cadre) posts in Chemistry. The petitioner had qualified the Screening Test but failed to clear the Subject Knowledge Test after scoring 52 marks against the qualifying benchmark of 52.5 marks.

Rejecting the petition, the High Court held that an unsuccessful candidate who had participated in the selection process without objection could not subsequently challenge it merely because the outcome was unfavourable.

UGC norms were binding: Petitioner

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate R N Lohan argued that appointments to the post of Assistant Professor were governed by the UGC Regulations, 2018, which had also been adopted by the Haryana government. It was submitted that while the UGC Regulations required a Selection Committee to undertake the recruitment process, the State Government had modified the Regulations by empowering the HPSC to frame the selection criteria, contrary to law. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mandeep Singh, the petitioner contended that the UGC Regulations were binding on the State.

The petitioner’s counsel further argued that “the UGC Regulations do not envisage conducting of an examination for the post of Assistant Professor in the first place.”

It was submitted that “the knowledge of a candidate with respect to a particular subject has already been evaluated by the University Grants Commission by holding an all-India level exam, thus, there is no need to conduct a Subject Knowledge Test.”

‘35% qualifying cut-off arbitrary’

The petitioner’s counsel also contended that fixing a 35 per cent qualifying cut-off in the Subject Knowledge Test was arbitrary and had already been set aside by the High Court in Asha Rani versus State of Haryana.

Opposing the plea, Haryana’s counsel, DAG Harish Nain, submitted that the judgment in Mandeep Singh was not applicable as it related to Punjab’s adoption of the UGC Regulations. It was further argued that the petitioner had not challenged the State Government’s notification dated November 11, 2022, by which the UGC Regulations were adopted with modifications, and had approached the court only after failing to qualify the Subject Knowledge Test.

The state counsel submitted that “the petitioner has only laid challenge to the selection process because she was unsuccessful therein.”

The court also held that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not challenged the November 11, 2022 government memo adopting the UGC Regulations with modifications.

“The UGC Regulations provide for a minimum benchmark and not a restrictive upper limit on institutional excellence,” the court observed.

The bench further held that “the impugned advertisement has not dispensed with the interview process… rather a test of qualifying nature followed by the Subject Knowledge Test has been added to promote the cause of meritocracy.”

Holding that the State’s recruitment process strengthened rather than diluted the UGC framework, the court observed that it “only supplements the UGC Regulations, especially since it does not diminish the eligibility criteria laid down in the latter.”

UGC regulations not violated: HC

Summarising its conclusions, the High Court held that “Conducting a Screening Test or Subject Knowledge Test does not amount to violation of the UGC Regulations” and that “The State Government is empowered to prescribe higher, more rigorous qualifications than those provided in the UGC Regulations so long as the criteria provided in the latter is not diluted.”

Justice Brar referred two questions to a larger Bench, including whether a State Government can prescribe qualifications higher than those provided under the UGC Regulations, including Screening and Subject Knowledge Tests, and whether the State is legally bound to adopt the UGC Regulations in their entirety. The Registry was directed to place the matter before the Acting Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench.