HPSC Cannot Introduce Interview Minimum Marks After Shortlist Is Published, Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed HPSC’s mid-process order fixing interview cut-offs for 189 teaching faculty posts, holding it an unlawful change to the rules of the game.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has quashed an announcement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission on 13 December 2022 that introduced minimum qualifying marks for the interview stage of a recruitment process for 189 posts of Teaching Faculty (Assistant Professor) in government medical colleges across Haryana. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, sitting singly, held that the HPSC — which was engaged only to conduct interviews, not to frame selection criteria — had no authority to impose a qualifying threshold of 50 per cent for the general category and 45 per cent for reserved categories, particularly after the shortlist of candidates and interview dates had already been made public. The result declared on 23 December 2022, to the extent it excluded petitioners for failing to meet that threshold, was set aside. HPSC was directed to re-evaluate all candidates strictly on aggregate merit out of 100 marks as originally advertised.
The Recruitment Process and the Mid-Course Change
The Director General Medical Education and Research, Haryana (DGMER) issued an advertisement on 31 May 2022 for 189 vacant Teaching Faculty posts on a regular basis. The selection scheme was a two-stage process: 75 marks for pre-merit academic credentials, further broken into detailed sub-heads, and 25 marks for an interview. No minimum qualifying marks were prescribed for either stage in the advertisement or in a corrigendum published on 27 September 2022.
A Selection Committee of experts from Pandit B.D. Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak (PGIMS) shortlisted candidates on the pre-merit criteria. The task of conducting interviews was separately entrusted to HPSC. On 7 December 2022 and 8 December 2022, HPSC published the shortlist of candidates and notified that interviews would be held on 19 December 2022 and 20 December 2022.
Six days before the interviews were to begin, on 13 December 2022, HPSC issued a fresh announcement imposing minimum qualifying marks of 50 per cent for general category candidates and 45 per cent for reserved category candidates to clear the interview stage. Petitioner No. 1 in CWP-751-2023, Dr. Surender Singh, had obtained 44 marks under the pre-merit criteria for the post of Assistant Professor (Orthopaedics) in the BCA category. His co-petitioner had obtained 40 marks for Assistant Professor (Anesthesiology) in the same category. Both appeared for the interview. The result declared on 23 December 2022 did not select them. They submitted representations on 24 December 2022 and 30 December 2022; no reply was received.
Three further petitioners — Dr. Abhinav Singh (CWP-673-2023), Priyanka (CWP-11775-2023), and Sunder Singh (CWP-8675-2023) — raised the same challenge in connected writ petitions. With the consent of all parties, Justice Brar disposed of all four petitions by a common order, drawing facts from CWP-751-2023.
The Legal Issue Framed by the Court
Justice Brar distilled the controversy into a single question: could HPSC, as the recruiting authority conducting interviews, deviate from the criteria declared in the advertisement dated 31 May 2022, in the absence of any rules or stipulation in the requisition, at the last stage of the selection process?
HPSC contended that it had not changed the weightage of the interview, which remained at 25 marks. It argued that prescribing minimum qualifying marks was merely akin to fixing a cut-off, which is permissible even at the final stage of selection to maintain the quality of candidates. It also raised a maintainability objection: the petitioners had participated in the interview without protest and raised objections only three weeks after being declared unsuccessful.
The petitioners countered that the advertisement and the interview call letters contained no such minimum threshold. HPSC had abruptly changed the rules of the game mid-process. They further argued that the timing of the change was suspicious: HPSC already knew the identity of all shortlisted candidates when it issued the 13 December 2022 announcement.
Why the Court Rejected HPSC’s Authority to Alter the Criteria
Justice Brar first located the source of the selection scheme. The advertisement was issued by DGMER, the employer. The pre-merit criteria was elaborately subdivided. The interview was described only as worth 25 marks with no minimum threshold attached. HPSC was engaged solely to conduct the interviews; nothing in the advertisement or any other material on record authorised it to modify the existing selection criteria.
The court relied on Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019) 6 SCC 362, where the Supreme Court held that essential qualifications and conditions of eligibility are for the employer to decide, and courts — and by extension, a body merely conducting interviews — cannot sit in the chair of the appointing authority to interpret or alter those conditions.
On the question of whether a benchmark can be added mid-process, Justice Brar relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 INSC 847. That bench, speaking through Justice Manoj Misra, clarified that while a recruiting authority may set benchmarks for various stages, “if any such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process.” The Constitution Bench also read K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512 as mandating that benchmarks must not be set after the relevant stage has already been played.
The court further drew from Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 2 SCT 736, where the Supreme Court held that if minimum marks for viva voce are not prescribed before the commencement of the selection process, the authority cannot add that requirement either during or after the process.
Justice Brar also distinguished weightage from a qualifying threshold. The interview remained worth 25 marks in the aggregate, but the impugned announcement introduced a separate elimination criterion. A candidate could score well overall yet be excluded solely for failing to reach the interview floor. This, the court held, effectively nullified the carefully structured 75-mark pre-merit academic criteria. The selection scheme in the advertisement contemplated aggregate merit; HPSC could not unilaterally render one stage irrelevant.
Reliance was also placed on Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, 2024 INSC 632, where the Supreme Court held that where a selection scheme expressly provides for evaluation by combining marks from written examination and viva voce, executive instructions cannot override that scheme.
Arbitrariness and the Timing of the Change
Justice Brar examined the timing of the 13 December 2022 announcement through the lens of Article 14 of the Constitution. When HPSC issued that announcement, it already knew the identities and likely relative standing of all shortlisted candidates. The qualifying threshold was introduced just six days before the interviews were to begin.
The court noted that no direct evidence of mala fide was placed on record, but the surrounding circumstances raised concern. The modification affected only candidates who fell below the new interview floor, while their aggregate academic merit — assessed through an expert-designed, multi-dimensional 75-mark formula — was disregarded. HPSC's stated rationale of maintaining high standards did not exempt the action from scrutiny under Article 14. The court observed that HPSC, as a State-run recruiting agency, could not afford doubts about its credibility, invoking the standard that Caesar's wife must remain above all suspicion.
A Constitution Bench reference in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 1 was cited for the proposition that absence of the rule of law produces accountability failures and abuse of power.
Participation in the Interview Did Not Bar the Challenge
HPSC argued that the petitioners, having appeared for the interview, were estopped from challenging the process. Justice Brar rejected this on two grounds.
First, the Supreme Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. Union of India (2019) 20 SCC 17 had held that a candidate who participates in a selection process accepts the prescribed procedure but not any illegality embedded in it. A candidate may, in fact, lack locus to challenge an illegality unless they participate.
Second, the Supreme Court in Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2020) held that a candidate unaware of the criteria to which they were subjected cannot be estopped from challenging it.
The court held that where an administrative action is void for want of authority or for being ultra vires the scheme under which it purports to have been issued, delay or laches become insignificant. A void act does not acquire validity through the passage of time.
Outcome
Justice Brar allowed all four writ petitions and issued the following directions:
The announcement dated 13 December 2022 issued by HPSC, fixing minimum qualifying marks for the interview, is quashed.
The result dated 23 December 2022 is set aside to the extent it excluded petitioners for failing to meet the minimum qualifying marks — that is, 50 per cent for the unreserved category and 45 per cent for reserved categories.
HPSC is directed to re-evaluate and finalise the selection process afresh, solely on the basis of the original advertisement dated 31 May 2022, calculating aggregate merit out of 100 marks (75 for pre-merit academic credentials and 25 for interview) without applying any minimum qualifying cut-off at the viva voce stage.
If any petitioner is found successful upon such aggregate evaluation and is otherwise eligible, the competent authority shall issue a consequential appointment letter. Pay will run from the date of joining, but notional benefits will be calculated from the date such benefits were disbursed to similarly placed batch-mates.
Insofar as petitioner No. 2 in CWP-751-2023 is concerned, her name had already been recommended for appointment by HPSC before the court's order. No further directions were issued qua her, and the petition was disposed of as infructuous in respect of her claim. All pending applications were also disposed of.