Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court Tuesday set aside the entire recruitment process for 613 vacant posts of assistant professor (English) carried out by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC), holding that the state’s November 2022 memorandum, which adopted the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) 2018 Regulations for teacher recruitment but with its own modifications, was unlawful.
The court has directed the state and HPSC to conduct the selection process afresh, strictly according to UGC Regulations, and to complete it expeditiously.
The HPSC had declared the results of the mains examination for college-cadre assistant professor (English) last December. The results triggered sharp anger among candidates. A total of 2,143 candidates had appeared for the recruitment examination, but only 151 managed to pass. The biggest controversy arose from the fact that not even enough candidates qualified to match the number of advertised posts, 613.
Candidates alleged that the commission had made the selection process unusually difficult by imposing a mandatory cut-off of 35% in the subject knowledge test. They contended that this norm did not conform to the standards prescribed by the UGC.
On Tuesday, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya decided 10 writ petitions filed by candidates who had cleared the preliminary screening test for the notified 613 posts of assistant professor (college cadre, English), but failed in the subsequent subject knowledge test, the result of which was declared in December 2025.
The HPSC advertisement for 613 posts was part of a larger composite advertisement issued in August 2024 for 2,424 assistant professor posts across 26 subjects in the higher education department.
Prof Pankaj Sharma, chairperson of the English Department at Chaudhary Devi Lal University in Sirsa said the order will have implications for other appointments made on the basis of the modifications now set aside.
“The judgement has larger implications as all appointments in Haryana across universities and aided colleges have been made according to the government notification dated 11.11.2022,” he said, when contacted by ThePrint for comment.
“Since the high court has quashed the HPSC advertisement and has by implication called to question the amendments in UGC 2018 regulations, adopted in various universities and Haryana government aided colleges, a large number of appointments made in the last four years may have to bear the consequences,” he added.
Also Read: Just 39 of 5,100 pass Haryana computer science teacher exam, row over recruitment process
State’s modification of UGC rules
The high court’s central concern was a memorandum issued by the Haryana government on 11 November, 2022, which purported to adopt the UGC’s Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges (Regulations), 2018, but with modifications. Three specific modifications were at issue.
First, the memorandum altered the note to Regulation 4.1, which ordinarily requires candidates to be shortlisted based on their academic score, covering graduation, post-graduation, M.Phil, Ph.D, NET score, research publications, teaching experience and academic awards, as specified in Appendix II, Table 3B of the UGC Regulations.
The modification said that for government colleges, selection of assistant professors shall be made by the HPSC according to criteria determined by the Haryana government, and for government-aided private colleges, according to criteria determined by the state from time to time based on UGC Regulations.
Second, under Regulation 5.0, which prescribes the constitution of selection committees, the state modified the provision for government colleges to say that the HPSC shall make selection according to the existing system of direct recruitment or according to state government instructions issued from time to time.
For government-aided colleges, existing criteria under the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979, and rules thereunder would continue.
Third, under Regulation 6.0, which lays down the selection procedure, the state inserted a modification that for government-aided colleges, the existing criteria for selection shall continue as framed by the state government, and for government colleges, the selection criteria shall be determined by HPSC.
Acting on this memorandum, the HPSC devised its own examination scheme, a screening test for shortlisting, followed by a subject knowledge test and interview, with the final merit list based on marks in the subject knowledge test and interview combined. The shortlisting was based on the screening test, not on the academic score as required under the UGC Regulations.
Also Read: Practice makes perfect? How you can be a professor with just your work experience
Why HC struck down changes
The court held that the UGC’s 2018 Regulations are not merely advisory guidelines that a state government can selectively adopt or modify. They are mandatory and binding on states as well as universities, having been notified under the UGC Act, 1956. It is a central enactment traceable to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which gives Parliament exclusive legislative competence over coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education.
The court noted that regulations 4, 5 and 6 of the UGC Regulations, covering qualifications, constitution of selection committees, and selection procedure respectively, form one composite whole.
They cannot be segregated or partially adopted. Any dismemberment of this scheme violates the minimum standards prescribed under central law, and states are not permitted to make selections of teachers in violation thereof.
The state government’s argument that it was free to adopt the regulations with modifications as it deemed appropriate was rejected outright. The court said this position had no legal foundation and was the outcome of a misconceived notion of absolute governmental authority that flies in the face of constitutional provisions.
The state had also argued that the UGC Regulations are only binding when an institution receives financial assistance from the UGC, and that since the Haryana government had not taken such assistance, the regulations were only directory.
The court rejected this too, holding that the UGC Regulations, being subordinate legislation under a central Act, become part of that Act and prevail over state legislation in case of conflict under Article 254 of the Constitution.
The court further held that the process actually adopted by the HPSC, shortlisting based on a screening test rather than academic score, and final selection based on subject knowledge test and interview marks, was not in accord with what the UGC Regulations prescribe.
The UGC scheme requires candidates to be shortlisted based on their cumulative academic record and then selected solely on interview performance. The HPSC scheme effectively replaced this with a written examination-based process, which is precisely what the Supreme Court had found objectionable in Mandeep Singh and others vs State of Punjab of 2025.
On Mandeep Singh case
The state and HPSC had argued that the Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment in Mandeep Singh case, which had struck down Punjab’s assistant professor recruitment, was distinguishable and had no application to Haryana’s case. The court examined this in detail and disagreed, and also clarified the precise scope of the Mandeep Singh case.
It held that the Mandeep Singh judgement did not lay down that UGC Regulations are per se applicable on states regardless of adoption. That specific question did not arise there because Punjab had already adopted the UGC Regulations by incorporation.
The problem was that despite having adopted the regulations, Punjab then excluded the posts of assistant professor from Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC)’s purview and carried out selection through departmental committees using a different, examination-only procedure, without a viva-voce, which the Supreme Court found arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In Haryana’s case, the high court found that the state had adopted the 2018 Regulations, but with modifications that stripped out the mandatory shortlisting criteria and selection procedure prescribed in regulations 4, 5, and 6. This was equally unlawful, even if by a different route.
The HPSC had argued that since the petitioners had themselves participated in the selection process and only approached the court after failing the subject knowledge test, they should not be permitted to challenge the process.
The court rejected this, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai vs State of Bihar, 2019, which held that by participating in a selection process a candidate only accepts the prescribed procedure, and not any illegality embedded in it. A constitutional violation cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has taken part in the process.
The high court thus declared Haryana’s memorandum dated 11 November, 2022, unlawful to the extent it violates regulations 4, 5, and 6 of the UGC 2018 Regulations.
Monika Sharma, one of the petitioners and convener of the agitation against the HPSC results, said: “This order has dismantled the arbitrary framework the HPSC used to turn a selection process into a rejection drive. But our fight is not over. We want the recruitment halted and 1,226 candidates called for 613 posts—twice the vacancies, as norms require.”
“The court has put HPSC on the backfoot, but what about us? Years of preparation, money spent, protests on streets—and still no jobs in hand. Physics candidates have been left out entirely because their results came earlier. This selective justice is deeply troubling. The court should have taken a far stricter view of how HPSC has played with the future of thousands of young people.”
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)