Haryana Can Set Higher Job Qualifications Than UGC Minimum, High Court Rules

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that states are free to prescribe qualifications higher than the minimum standards set by the University Grants Commission (UGC) when recruiting staff. The decision came on July 3 while dismissing a petition that challenged Haryana's recruitment process for 123 assistant professor posts.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that “it is the prerogative of the employer to recruit the best available talent and not merely those who satisfy the base minimum.” The court stated that UGC Regulations prescribe only minimum standards and do not act as a cap on excellence.

The petition was filed by Renu Kumari Rohal, who had qualified the Screening Test but failed the Subject Knowledge Test by 0.5 marks. She argued that the state's selection process violated UGC norms, which she said were binding on the state. Her counsel, Advocate R N Lohan, contended that the UGC Regulations 2018 require a Selection Committee to conduct recruitment, not a written examination.

The court rejected these arguments, noting that the petitioner had participated in the process without objection and only challenged it after an unfavourable outcome. It also observed that the state government’s notification adopting the UGC Regulations with modifications – which the petitioner did not challenge – allowed for the additional test.

“The UGC Regulations provide for a minimum benchmark and not a restrictive upper limit on institutional excellence,” the court said. It added that the impugned advertisement did not dispense with interviews but included a qualifying test to promote meritocracy.

However, noting an apparent conflict with an earlier coordinate Bench judgment, the court referred the legal issues to a larger Bench for final resolution.

The state government argued that the Supreme Court judgment in Mandeep Singh, cited by the petitioner, was not applicable as it pertained to Punjab’s adoption of UGC norms. The court agreed that the state had the power to modify the recruitment process.