State Can Prescribe Screening and Subject Knowledge Tests Beyond UGC Minimum Standards; Candidates Cannot Challenge Recruitment After Failing: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Name: Divyanshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 15 July 2026

Citation: CWP-15967-2026

Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribe minimum standards for appointment to teaching posts and do not prohibit the State or the recruiting authority from introducing higher or more rigorous standards to assess merit. Accordingly, the State of Haryana and the Haryana Public Service Commission were competent to prescribe a Screening Test and Subject Knowledge Test for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor in Psychology.

The Court held that additional stages of examination do not violate or supplant the UGC Regulations where they merely strengthen scrutiny without diluting the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC. The constitutional restriction operates against lowering Central standards, not against the State prescribing higher standards for shortlisting and selecting suitable candidates.

The Court further held that a candidate who knowingly participates in a recruitment process with full knowledge of the advertisement, examination pattern, qualifying marks and selection criteria cannot ordinarily challenge that process after being unsuccessful. Such participation without protest amounts to acquiescence, particularly where the alleged illegality was apparent and capable of being challenged before participation.

A challenge after participation may be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, such as where the illegality could not reasonably have been foreseen or where the process involves a substantive constitutional violation. Neither circumstance was established in the present case.

The Court also held that a high failure rate or the fact that only three candidates qualified against 85 vacancies does not, by itself, prove that the evaluation process was arbitrary or illegal. Rigorous standards intended to ensure merit cannot be invalidated merely because only a small number of candidates succeed.

Summary: The Haryana Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No. 63 of 2024 for filling 85 posts of Assistant Professor in Psychology. The selection process comprised a Screening Test followed by a Subject Knowledge Test. The petitioners qualified the Screening Test but failed to obtain the prescribed minimum qualifying marks of 35% in the Subject Knowledge Test. Only three candidates were declared successful against the 85 advertised vacancies.

After being declared unsuccessful, the petitioners challenged the advertisement and the Subject Knowledge Test result. They contended that the examination structure was contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018, under which shortlisting for Assistant Professor posts was required to be based on academic scores and final selection was to be made only on interview performance. They also argued that the unusually low number of successful candidates reflected an excessively strict evaluation process and frustrated the implementation of reservation because no candidate from the SC, BCA, BCB or EWS categories qualified.

The State and HPSC maintained that the UGC Regulations prescribe only minimum academic standards and do not prevent the State from introducing additional stages to evaluate the comparative merit and subject knowledge of applicants. They further argued that the petitioners had accepted the advertised procedure, participated in both stages and questioned the process only after failing the Subject Knowledge Test.

The High Court held that the State possesses the authority to prescribe standards higher than the minimum standards laid down by the UGC, provided the Central standards are not diluted. A Screening Test and Subject Knowledge Test were regarded as additional mechanisms for identifying meritorious candidates and restricting the zone of consideration where a large number of applicants compete for limited vacancies. These examinations supplemented the UGC framework rather than replacing or contradicting it.

The Court distinguished between the impermissible dilution of UGC standards and the permissible enhancement of recruitment scrutiny. It observed that the constitutional and statutory scheme does not compel the State to restrict itself to the minimum benchmark fixed by the UGC. The recruiting authority may evolve a rational and rigorous procedure for choosing the best candidates, including written tests, shortlisting criteria and minimum qualifying marks.

The Court rejected the argument based solely on the low success rate. It held that the fact that only three candidates qualified against 85 posts did not establish arbitrariness, unfair evaluation or violation of reservation principles. The outcome could not invalidate the process when the prescribed benchmark was uniformly applied and the additional test itself was within the competence of the State.

The Court also applied the doctrine of acquiescence. The petitioners were fully aware of the selection procedure when the advertisement was issued, yet participated without objection and challenged it only after failing. The alleged inconsistency with the UGC Regulations was neither concealed nor unforeseeable. Therefore, the petitioners could not accept the process when it offered them an opportunity of selection and reject it when the result became unfavourable.

Their reliance on Asha Rani v. State of Haryana was not accepted because the question concerning the legality of additional screening tests had subsequently been considered in Renu Kumari Rohal v. State of Haryana. The Court also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the State Memorandum dated 11 November 2022, which formed the foundation of the impugned recruitment procedure.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld Advertisement No. 63 of 2024 as well as the recruitment process conducted by HPSC. It ruled that the State may prescribe Screening and Subject Knowledge Tests in addition to the minimum standards under the UGC Regulations, provided those standards are not diluted.

The Court further held that the petitioners, having participated in the process with full knowledge of its conditions and having challenged it only after failing the Subject Knowledge Test, were barred from questioning the recruitment procedure. The low number of successful candidates was also held insufficient to invalidate an otherwise lawful and uniformly applied selection process.