Assistant professor recruitment for GMCs: HC quashes minimum qualifying marks introduced by HPSC after commencing selections

Chandigarh: Observing that eligibility criteria cannot be altered by the recruiting authority after the commencement of the selection process, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed the Haryana Public Service Commission's introduction of minimum qualifying marks for the interview held to recruit Assistant Professors for Government Medical Colleges.

Noting that the list of shortlisted candidates had already been published, the HC bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar faulted the timing and effect of the change and observed that the Commission "cannot afford such doubts regarding its credibility as Caesar's wife must remain above all suspicion."

"Altering the criteria, while being aware of the details of the shortlisted candidates, 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," observed the HC bench.

Case Background: 

A total of 189 posts of Teaching Faculty (Assistant Professor) in Super Speciality and Broad Speciality disciplines were advertised by the Director General of Medical Education and Research on 31.05.2022. 

Under the prescribed scheme, 75 marks were awarded on detailed pre-merit academic criteria, and 25 marks were awarded for the interview. However, there was no minimum qualifying threshold mentioned for either of the components. No changes were made to this scheme through a corrigendum dated 27.09.2022.

A plea before the High Court was filed by two doctors, who were working as Senior Residents at PGIMS, Rohtak, and they applied respectively for posts in Orthopaedics and Anaesthesiology under the BCA category. On the pre-merit criteria, they scored 44 and 40 marks respectively and were called for interview by announcements dated 07.12.2022 and 08.12.2022, and the interviews were scheduled for 19.12.2022 and 20.12.2022.

On 13.12.2022, six days before the interviews were to commence, and after the shortlist was already public, HPSC made an announcement and prescribed the minimum qualifying marks for the interview. The PSC prescribed 50% for the general category and 45% for reserved categories. Even though both the petitioners appeared for the interview, they could not clear this newly introduced threshold. They were excluded in the result declared on 23.12.2022 and their representations also went unanswered.

The counsel for the petitioners contended that no minimum marks had been prescribed for the interview either in the original advertisement or in the shortlisting announcements. It was further argued that HPSC had changed the rules of the game mid-process, which is expressly forbidden by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Manjushree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi 2008 and Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala and others.

Further, the counsel argued that only 90 candidates were called for interview against 189 posts of Teaching Faculty and, under the BCA category, only one applicant qualified to this stage against the posts of Assistant Professor (Orthopaedics) and Assistant Professor (Anesthesiology) each. Therefore, it was contended that unnecessary weightage has been given to the interview while the academic career of post-graduate doctors, assessed by means of the pre-merit criteria, is more important to ascertain their capacity as Assistant Professors.

Additionally, the counsel pointed out that both the petitioners obtained their undergraduate and postgraduate degrees from government medical colleges and are currently working as Senior Residents in Pandit B.D. Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, which makes it suspicious as to how they could not secure 45% marks, as subsequently prescribed by the HPSC through the announcement dated 13.12.2022.

On the other hand, the counsel for HPSC submitted that the name of one of the petitioner had been appointed by the HPSC and therefore, the petition should be dismissed qua the petitioner. He further argued that the contention of the petitioners regarding the modified selection criteria was without merits as the selection was carried out in terms of the advertisement (supra) i.e. 75 marks for academic qualification, as per the pre-merit criteria, and 25 marks for the interview.

No fresh criterion has been added to the same vide impugned announcement dated 13.12.2022. The interview remains worth 25 marks, as originally advertised, submitted the counsel, further submitting that HPSC has been entrusted with the responsibility to conduct interviews for these highly specialised posts and since the candidates were only assessed based on their academic qualifications, it was decided that minimum qualifying marks should apply to the interview to maintain high standard of competence.

Observations by High Court: 

After hearing the submissions, the HC bench drew a sharp distinction, noting, "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 selection scheme provided in the advertisement (supra) makes it clear that selections will be made based on the aggregate marks secured in both the stages. Thus, the respondent-HPSC cannot unilaterally alter the criteria in a manner where one stage is rendered irrelevant, especially in absence of relevant authorisation in this regard," it further observed.

The bench referred to the Supreme Court order in the case of Salam Samarjeet Singh vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, where it was opined that when the selection scheme called for an aggregate of marks in viva-voce and written examination to be considered for final selection, in terms of statutory rules therein, the same cannot be overcome by means of administrative instructions.

Further, the HC bench observed that "Article 14 recognises that arbitrariness and fair play are sworn enemies and thus, strikes at the heart of arbitrary State action by demanding that exercise of any public power only be guided by reason and equality. Moreover, the overt display of fair play is integral to the idea of natural justice and a failure to abide by the same would not merely amount to an administrative misconduct but would be a direct affront to the Rule of Law."

According to the High Court, this principle was further enunciated by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. and others, where, it was observed that "If Rule of law is absent, there is no accountability, there is abuse of power and corruption. When the Rule of law disappears, we are ruled not by laws but by the idiosyncrasies and whims of those in power."

The bench observed that through the announcement dated 13.12.2022, a qualifying benchmark directly impacting eligibility of candidates has been introduced for the stage of interview that was set to commence in about 06 days i.e. 19.12.2022 onwards.

"Not only does such eligibility-limiting modification defy the legitimate expectation in the candidates to be judged per the notified criteria but also creates a perception of arbitrariness. Tritely, legitimate expectations of individuals can be superseded by public interest, however, it is on the State to establish how the latter is being served by its decisions. It is the case of the respondent-HPSC that the additional checkpoints merely ensure that the best available faculty is provided to Government Medical Colleges. Nevertheless, the defence of public interest does not exempt the actions of the respondent-HPSC to be scrutinised from the lens of Article 14 of the Constitution. The 75-marks awarded under premerit/academic criteria were not distributed in an unstructured or nebulous manner, rather, the candidates were assessed using a detailed, multi-dimensional formula, devised by experts of respondent-DGMER. As such, mere absence of a written exam does not in itself diminish the quality of the recruitment, especially when the selection scheme actually employed has been recommended by experts. As such, considering that the selection scheme was complete and express, it does not satisfy the objective standards of reason and justice for the respondent-HPSC to modify the selection criteria as provided in the advertisement (supra) by introducing minimum qualifying marks at the interview stage," it observed at this outset.

It opined that the "arbitrariness of the act and conduct of the respondent HPSC is supplemented by the timing of the modification", as at the time of introducing the minimum qualifying marks, HPSC was already aware of all the candidates shortlisted for the interview.

"A specific argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the selection criteria was modified vide announcement dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-24) in order to discount the petitioner from the zone of consideration. Even though no direct evidence of mala fide has been brought to the fore, the surrounding circumstances raise concern. The modification made by the respondent-HPSC discounts certain candidates, including the petitioner, from the zone of consideration solely on the basis of interview marks while the original selection scheme sought for selections to be made on the basis of aggregate merit i.e. marks obtained under the academic criteria and the marks obtained in the interview. Altering the criteria, while being aware of the details of the shortlisted candidates, 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 HC bench held.

Accordingly, 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. Further, it directed HPSC to re-evaluate and finalise the selections afresh, strictly on the criteria originally stipulated in the advertisement.

The Court issued the following directions:

(i) The order/announcement dated 13.12.2022 passed by respondent No. 2-Haryana Public Service Commission, whereby fresh criteria/minimum qualification was fixed for interview is hereby quashed.

(ii) The Result dated 23.12.2022 is set aside to the extent of exclusion of the petitioner(s) for the reason of failure to meet the minimum qualifying marks in the interview i.e. 50% for the unreserved category and 45% for the reserved categories.

(iii) The respondent-HPSC is directed to re-evaluate and finalize the selection process afresh, solely on the basis of the criteria originally stipulated in the advertisement dated 31.05.2022, i.e., by calculating aggregate merit out of 100 marks (75 marks for pre-merit academic credentials and 25 marks for interview) without applying any minimum qualifying cut-off for the viva voce.

(iv) In the event that the petitioner(s) are found successful upon such aggregate evaluation, the respondents/competent authority shall issue the consequential appointment letter to them, if they are found otherwise eligible. Such selected candidates/petitioner(s), if any, shall be entitled to pay only from the day of joining service but the notional benefits shall be calculated from the date of such benefits being disbursed to their batch-mates.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/21/punjab-and-haryana-hc-366310.pdf

Also Read: Centre Sanctions 1,500 New CDSCO Posts to Strengthen Medical Device Regulation