States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The criteria laid down in the UGC Regulations are the floor and not the ceiling as far as prescription of standards is concerned. Proactively exceeding the statutory basics by adopting enhanced models does not violate the regulatory framework, rather it fulfills the progressive spirit of the law and public policy objectives." Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 3, 2026, has held that State Governments are empowered to prescribe higher and more rigorous qualifications for the recruitment of Assistant Professors than those provided under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations.

A bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that adding extra layers of scrutiny, such as a Subject Knowledge Test, does not dilute the central standards but rather supplements them to fulfill the employer's prerogative of recruiting the best available talent.

The petitioner, Renu Kumari Rohal, approached the High Court seeking to quash an advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for 123 posts of Assistant Professor (Chemistry). The petitioner challenged the selection procedure, which included a screening test, a subject knowledge test with 87.5% weightage, and an interview with 12.5% weightage. She argued that this was contrary to the UGC Regulations 2018, which she claimed prescribe selection based primarily on academic scores and interviews. Notably, the petitioner had participated in the process and cleared the screening test but failed to qualify the Subject Knowledge Test by a narrow margin of 0.5 marks.

The primary question before the court was whether a challenge to a recruitment advertisement by an unsuccessful candidate who knowingly participated in the process is maintainable. Furthermore, the court was called upon to determine whether the State Government is empowered to prescribe qualifications and tests that are higher or more rigorous than the minimum standards provided in the UGC Regulations.

Court’s Observations On Maintainability And Estoppel

The court first addressed the maintainability of the petition, noting that the petitioner only approached the court after being declared unsuccessful in the Subject Knowledge Test. Justice Brar emphasized that it is no longer res integra that a candidate who knowingly participates in a selection process cannot subsequently challenge the same because the outcome was unfavorable.

Unsuccessful Candidates Cannot Question Selection Criteria

The court observed that participation without protest amounts to acquiescence, and the candidate is deemed to have waived the right to question the methodology. The underlying rationale is that a person cannot be permitted to "approbate and reprobate" by first accepting the rules of the game to take a chance at success and then assailing the process upon failure.

"Once an advertisement is issued inviting applications for public employment, it is the responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and note the terms and understand what its requirements are."

State’s Power To Prescribe Higher Standards

On the merits of the challenge regarding UGC Regulations, the court clarified the constitutional interplay between Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. The bench noted that while UGC Regulations form part of central legislation, the State is not prevented from laying down higher standards for its own institutions.

UGC Norms Are The 'Floor', Not The 'Ceiling'

Justice Brar explained that the UGC Regulations seek to provide a mandatory baseline to prevent sub-standard education, but they do not set a restrictive upper limit on institutional excellence. The court held that proactively exceeding the statutory basics by adopting enhanced models does not violate the regulatory framework but promotes meritocracy.

"The multi-tiered scrutiny envisaged by respondent No. 3-HPSC thus, merely amounts to making the selection process more rigorous while maintaining the minimum benchmark provided in the UGC Regulations."

Prerogative Of The Employer To Recruit Best Talent

The court further observed that it is the prerogative of the employer to recruit the best available talent. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar, the bench noted that when applications are numerous, conducting only interviews may not be feasible or thorough, making screening tests a rational procedure for short-listing.

"When there are more applicants than the available situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or the Central authority to short-list the applicants."

Consistency With Constitutional Safeguards

The court held that as long as the additional criteria do not diminish or dilute the eligibility norms set by the University Act or the UGC, they cannot be termed illegal. The bench noted that the impugned advertisement did not dispense with the interview process but merely added a Subject Knowledge Test to ensure a more rigorous academic vetting of the candidates.

Reference To Larger Bench Due To Conflict

Despite dismissing the petition on the grounds of maintainability and the State's power to enhance standards, the court noticed an apparent conflict of judicial opinion. It noted that a coordinate bench in Asha Rani and others vs. State of Haryana had recently set aside the 35% cut-off for the subject knowledge test as arbitrary.

Questions Referred For Adjudication

To ensure clarity and consistency, Justice Brar framed questions for reference to a larger bench. These include whether the State is legally bound to accept UGC Regulations "in toto" and whether it possesses the power to prescribe higher qualifications and additional tests like the Subject Knowledge Test in addition to those mentioned in the 2018 Regulations.

The court dismissed the present petition but directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice for listing the reference before an appropriate larger bench to resolve the conflict regarding the State's power to modify selection criteria under UGC norms.

Date of Decision: 03 July 2026