Selection Committee Cannot Convert Interview into a Veto Stage When Advertisement Prescribes No Minimum Qualifying Marks: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds ‘Not Found Suitable’ Declaration Arbitrary and Violative of Article 14

Case Name: Jaibir Singh v. Chaudhary Bansi Lal University Bhiwani through its Registrar and Another

Date of Judgment: 16 September 2026

Citation: CWP-19879-2017

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar.

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where the notified recruitment criteria prescribe a composite, multi-dimensional selection process and do not stipulate any minimum qualifying marks for domain knowledge or interview, the Selection Committee cannot subsequently treat performance in those components as an independent qualifying threshold or a veto against appointment. The Court found that the University had allocated 80 marks to Computer Typing, General Aptitude Test, Academic Qualifications and Work Experience, while only 20 marks were assigned collectively to Domain Knowledge and Interview. Since the advertisement neither fixed a minimum qualifying score in the latter components nor empowered the Selection Committee to declare a candidate unsuitable solely on that basis, awarding the petitioner no marks in domain knowledge and interview and declaring him “Not Found Suitable” effectively rewrote the notified rules of selection after commencement of the recruitment process.

The Court further held that the Selection Committee’s discretion to assess suitability had to operate within the framework of the advertised criteria. It could not give such overriding importance to the interview and domain-knowledge stage that the marks secured under the remaining 80-mark objective component became meaningless. Doing so amounted to introducing an unadvertised disqualification and converting a merit-based selection process into an interview-oriented process.

The Court also held that such exclusion offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India, observing that excluding a candidate on the basis of a threshold that was never notified, coupled with absence of a reasoned basis for the award of nil marks, constituted an arbitrary and unguided exercise of power.

Summary: The petitioner, Jaibir Singh, challenged the result of recruitment conducted by Chaudhary Bansi Lal University for the post of Assistant under Advertisement No. 2/2017. One of the eight advertised posts was reserved for the BC-B category. The petitioner asserted that he possessed the prescribed academic qualification as well as ten years’ experience, although the post required only five years’ experience. He participated in the Computer Typing Test and General Aptitude Test and thereafter became part of the selection process governed by six components i.e. Computer Typing, General Aptitude Test, Academic Qualifications, Work Experience, Domain Knowledge and Interview.

According to the petitioner, he secured 35.55 marks under Selection Criteria A to D and was the most meritorious candidate in the BC-B category. However, although he was called for the subsequent stage, he was awarded no marks in Domain Knowledge or Interview and was ultimately shown as “Not Found Suitable.” His principal challenge was that the notified criteria contained no minimum qualifying marks for interview or domain knowledge and therefore the Selection Committee could not eliminate him by introducing such a requirement after the selection process had commenced.

The University defended its action by contending that assessment of capability and suitability lay within the domain of the Selection Committee and that participation in the recruitment process did not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. It was also stated that none of the three candidates called for interview against the BC-B vacancy was found suitable and the post consequently remained vacant.

Examining the notified criteria, the High Court noted that 35 marks were assigned to Computer Typing, 30 to the General Aptitude Test, 10 to Academic Qualifications, five to Work Experience, eight to Domain Knowledge and 12 to Interview. A merit list based on Criteria A to D was first required to be prepared before candidates were called for the remaining assessment. Thus, the recruitment framework was deliberately structured as a composite assessment rather than an interview-dominated selection.

The Court emphasised the distinction between weightage and a qualifying threshold. While weightage determines the contribution of a particular component to aggregate merit, a qualifying threshold determines whether a candidate is eliminated altogether irrespective of his overall score. Such an elimination threshold could not be introduced unless expressly authorised by the advertisement. In reaching this conclusion, the Court referred to the principles flowing from Manoj Manu v. Union of India, S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur and other authorities concerning alteration of recruitment criteria after commencement of selection.

The High Court concluded that the Selection Committee could not lawfully make Domain Knowledge and Interview a de facto qualifying or veto stage when the recruitment advertisement itself did not prescribe such a consequence. The candidate was required to be assessed against the 20 marks allocated to those components and his final merit determined on the basis of the aggregate score under the notified selection scheme.

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The High Court directed Chaudhary Bansi Lal University to reconsider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment and to pass an appropriate order within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that, if appointed, the petitioner would be entitled to all notional benefits from the date on which the other selected candidates joined, although actual remuneration would be payable only from the date of his actual joining.