The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh set aside the Haryana Public Service Commission's impugned announcement fixing minimum interview marks, holding that a recruiting authority cannot modify selection criteria after the recruitment process has commenced. The order directs a fresh evaluation based on the original advertisement, reinforcing the constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness in public employment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Dr. Surender Singh and another (CWP-751-2023), Dr. Abhinav Singh (CWP-673-2023), Priyanka (CWP-11775-2023) and Sunder Singh (CWP-8675-2023), applied for Assistant Professor posts (BCA category) advertised by the Director General Medical Education and Research, Haryana (DGMER) on 31.05.2022. After short-listing, the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) issued an announcement on 13.12.2022 prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the interview (50% for General, 45% for Reserved categories). The petitioners were not selected in the result dated 23.12.2022 and filed writ petitions under Articles 226/227 seeking quashing of the impugned announcement and the result.
Key Facts
- 31.05.2022: Advertisement issued for 189 Assistant Professor vacancies (Annexure P-1).
- 27.09.2022: Corrigendum issued; no change to interview criteria.
- 07.12.2022 & 08.12.2022: Short-list of candidates published; interview scheduled for 19-20.12.2022 (Annexure P-23, P-23A).
- 13.12.2022: HPSC issued announcement fixing minimum interview marks (Annexure P-24).
- 19-20.12.2022: Interviews conducted.
- 23.12.2022: Result announced; petitioners not selected (Annexure P-25).
- 24.12.2022 & 30.12.2022: Petitioners submitted representations; no reply received (Annexure P-26, P-27).
- 14.07.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 19.08.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Procedural History
- 31.05.2022: Advertisement issued by DGMER.
- 07.12.2022: Short-list announced; interview schedule issued.
- 13.12.2022: HPSC issued impugned announcement fixing minimum interview marks.
- 23.12.2022: Result declared; petitioners excluded.
- 24.12.2022 & 30.12.2022: Petitioners filed representations with HPSC (no response).
- [Date of filing writ petitions]: Petitioners filed writ petitions CWP-751-2023, CWP-673-2023, CWP-11775-2023, CWP-8675-2023 under Articles 226/227.
- 14.07.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 19.08.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioners: Contended that the advertisement and corrigendum made no provision for minimum interview marks; the HPSC’s amendment after short-listing was arbitrary, violative of K. Manjusree and Hemani Malhotra precedents and of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Respondent (HPSC): Asserted that the interview component was worth 25 marks and that setting a cut-off was within its discretion to maintain standards; argued that petitioner No. 2 had already been recommended for appointment.
Relief Sought
The petitioners prayed for:
- Quashing of the HPSC announcement dated 13.12.2022 fixing minimum interview marks.
- Setting aside the result dated 23.12.2022 to the extent of exclusion based on the said cut-off.
- Direction to re-evaluate the selection solely on the original criteria (75 marks pre-merit + 25 marks interview) without any minimum qualifying threshold.
- Issuance of appointment letters if the petitioners are found successful on re-evaluation.
- Interim relief to reserve one Assistant Professor post each in Orthopaedics and Anaesthesiology during pendency.
The Legal Issue
Whether the Haryana Public Service Commission, as the recruiting authority, may deviate from the selection criteria laid down in the advertisement dated 31.05.2022 by imposing a minimum qualifying mark for the interview stage after the short-listing of candidates had already been made.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- No minimum interview marks were mentioned in the advertisement or corrigendum; the HPSC’s amendment is a post-factum change amounting to arbitrariness (K. Manjusree; Hemani Malhotra).
- The amendment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which forbid unreasonable classification and ensure equality of opportunity.
- The Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court held that benchmarks must be stipulated before the commencement of recruitment.
- The petitioners have not waived their right to challenge the amendment despite having appeared for the interview.
For the Respondent (HPSC)
- The interview component is worth 25 marks; setting a cut-off is a reasonable administrative measure to ensure quality.
- The HPSC is entrusted with conducting interviews and may prescribe additional qualifications to maintain standards.
- Petitioner No. 2 had already been recommended for appointment, rendering the petition infructuous in her case.
- No specific rule prohibits the HPSC from fixing a minimum qualifying mark at the interview stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first examined the advertisement dated 31.05.2022, which clearly delineated a two-tiered selection scheme: 75 marks for pre-merit academic criteria and 25 marks for the interview. No provision for a minimum qualifying mark in the interview was found either in the advertisement or the corrigendum dated 27.09.2022.
"The scheme as provided in the advertisement makes it clear that selection shall be made in terms of marks obtained per the pre-merit criteria (worth 75 marks) and in the interview (worth 25 marks)."
The Court noted that the HPSC’s role was limited to conducting the interview; it was not the appointing authority and therefore could not unilaterally alter the substantive criteria. Relying on Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Warade the Court reiterated that the employer alone decides essential qualifications and that the court cannot rewrite eligibility conditions.
The Court further invoked Tej Prakash Pathak and Hemani Malhotra to emphasise that any benchmark, including a cut-off, must be fixed before the recruitment process commences. Introducing a minimum interview mark on 13.12.2022, when the shortlist and interview dates were already public, was held to be “arbitrary” and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
The Court distinguished the respondent’s argument that the cut-off was a quality-control measure, observing that such a measure, if permissible, must be expressly provided for in the rules. In the present case, the rules were silent on a minimum interview threshold, and the HPSC’s amendment effectively nullified the merit earned under the pre-merit criteria.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the HPSC acted ultra-vires and its impugned announcement and the consequent result must be set aside.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court quashed the HPSC announcement dated 13.12.2022 fixing fresh minimum interview qualifications, set aside the result dated 23.12.2022 to the extent of exclusion based on the cut-off, and directed the HPSC to re-evaluate the selection solely on the original criteria (75 marks academic + 25 marks interview) without any minimum qualifying threshold. If the petitioners are found successful on re-evaluation, the competent authority must issue appointment letters; otherwise, the matter stands closed. No monetary relief was awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Selection Criteria Cannot Be Altered Mid-Process
- Recruiting authorities must adhere strictly to the criteria disclosed in the advertisement.
- Any post-advertisement modification that affects candidate eligibility is liable to be struck down as arbitrary.
Minimum Qualifying Marks Must Be Stated Before Recruitment Begins
- Benchmarks such as cut-offs must be incorporated in the original rules or advertisement.
- Introducing a cut-off after short-listing breaches Articles 14 and 16 and is ultra-vires.
Judicial Review Upholds Equality and Fair Play
-
Courts will closely scrutinise any deviation that creates a class of candidates disadvantaged without a rational basis.
-
Practitioners should advise clients to challenge post-hoc criteria changes promptly and document all procedural timelines.
-
Ensure that recruitment advertisements contain clear provisions on any minimum qualifying marks.
-
If a cut-off is contemplated, it must be promulgated before the first stage of the selection process.
-
Raise constitutional challenges under Articles 14 and 16 where arbitrariness is evident.
