HPSC Cannot Prescribe Minimum Interview Marks Mid-Selection; Recruiting Agency Must Remain “Above All Suspicion”: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Dr. Surender Singh and Another v. State of Haryana and Others.
Date of Judgment: 19 August 2026
Citation: CWP No. 751 of 2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Haryana Public Service Commission could not introduce minimum qualifying marks for the interview after the recruitment process had commenced, particularly when the governing advertisement contemplated selection on aggregate merit comprising 75 marks for academic credentials and 25 marks for interview. Prescribing a separate interview threshold of 50% for the General Category and 45% for reserved categories altered candidates’ eligibility and amounted to changing the rules of the game mid-selection. HPSC had only been entrusted with conducting interviews and had no authority to unilaterally modify the selection criteria prescribed by the employer.
Summary: The recruitment advertisement for 189 Assistant Professor posts in Haryana Government Medical Colleges prescribed a 100-mark selection scheme, allocating 75 marks to pre-merit academic credentials and 25 marks to the interview. It did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks for the interview. After the shortlisted candidates and interview dates had already been announced, HPSC issued an announcement on 13 December 2022 requiring General Category candidates to secure 50% and reserved category candidates to secure 45% marks in the interview. Candidates who failed to meet this subsequently introduced threshold were excluded from selection irrespective of their aggregate merit.
The High Court found that an interview’s assigned weightage and a minimum qualifying threshold serve legally distinct purposes. While weightage determines how much the interview contributes to aggregate merit, a qualifying threshold eliminates a candidate regardless of overall performance. By introducing such a threshold merely six days before the interviews, HPSC effectively nullified the academic marks awarded under the detailed pre-merit criteria framed by the employer. The Court observed that the timing of the modification, after HPSC already knew the identities of shortlisted candidates, cast doubt upon the selection methodology. Though no direct mala fides were established, a State recruiting agency must maintain institutional credibility and, like Caesar’s wife, remain above suspicion.
The Court further held that participation in the interview did not prevent the candidates from challenging the illegal condition. A candidate accepts the notified procedure by participating in a recruitment process, but does not waive the right to challenge an unauthorised or unconstitutional alteration subsequently introduced into that procedure.
Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed HPSC’s announcement prescribing minimum qualifying interview marks. The result was set aside to the extent that the petitioners had been excluded for failing to meet those marks. HPSC was directed to re-evaluate the selection strictly on aggregate merit out of 100 marks—75 marks for academic credentials and 25 marks for interview—without applying any minimum viva voce cut-off.