Punjab-Haryana High Court
Divyanshi And Others vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 15 July, 2026
CWP-15967-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
118+122
Date of decision: 15.07.2026
1. CWP-15967-2026 (O&M)
Divyanshi and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
2. CWP-18671-2026 (O&M)
Lokesh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
3. CWP-19888-2026 (O&M)
Jaideep and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
4. CWP-19920-2026 (O&M)
Vivek Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate
and Mr. Ankur Goyat, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.15967 and 19920 of 2026.
Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-18671-2026.
Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate
MOHD YAKUB
2026.07.16 13:59
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
CWP-15967-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 2
for the petitioners in CWP-19888-2026.
Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate
for the respondent/HPSC
in CWP Nos.15967 and 18671 of 2026.
Ms. Sheena Goyal, Advocate
for the respondent/HPSC in CWP-19888-2026.
Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate (through V.C.)
and Ms. Richa Tayal, Advocate
for the respondent/HPSC in CWP-19920-2026.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ
petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common
judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP-
15967-2026.
2. Prayer in the writ petition (CWP-15967-2026) filed under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari, for quashing the Advertisement No.63 of 2024
dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-1), as well as the consequent result of the
Subject Knowledge Test dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) declared by
respondent No.2. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing
the respondents to conduct the recruitment strictly in accordance with
the UGC Regulations, 2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia,
contended that the respondent-Commission issued an Advertisement
No.63/2024 dated 02.08.2024, inviting applications for 85 posts of
Assistant Professor (Psychology). The petitioners being fully eligible,
MOHD YAKUB
2026.07.16 13:59
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
CWP-15967-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 3
applied for the said posts and duly participated in the recruitment
process. The Screening Test for Psychology was conducted on
21.12.2025, and the result thereof was declared on 19.02.2026, wherein
the petitioners successfully qualified and were shortlisted for the
Subject Knowledge Test (SKT). The Subject Knowledge Test was,
thereafter, conducted on 22.03.2026, however, upon declaration of the
Subject Knowledge Test result on 11.05.2026, only 03 candidates were
declared qualified against 85 advertised vacancies. Learned counsel for
the petitioners has further argued that Advertisement No.63/2024 is
legally unsustainable as its examination structure directly contravenes
Clause 4.0 and Appendix II, Table 3B of the UGC Regulations, 2018,
which mandate that for the post of Assistant Professor in Colleges,
shortlisting of candidates must be done strictly on the basis of
“Academic Score” and the final selection shall be based “only on the
performance in the interview.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended
that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranav Verma v.
Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, (2020)
15 SCC 377, wherein the Court disapproved an evaluation process
resulting in a disproportionately high rate of failure due to unduly strict
assessment. He has further submitted that the declared result had
defeated the constitutional mandate of reservation under Article 16 of
the Constitution of India, as not a single candidate belonging to the SC,
MOHD YAKUB
2026.07.16 13:59
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
CWP-15967-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 4
BCA, BCB or EWS categories was declared successful in the subjective
examination.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted
that on 12.05.2026, i.e. immediately after the declaration of the
impugned result, this Court in CWP-661-2026 along with connected
matters, titled as Asha Rani & Ors. v. State of Haryana (Annexure P-
6), has categorically declared the State Memorandum dated 11.11.2022
to be ultra vires the UGC Regulations, 2018, and consequently quashed
the Advertisement No.48/2024 (English), which formed part of the same
composite advertisement process. This Court has further held that the
selection scheme prescribed under the said memorandum and the
consequential selection procedure framed thereunder, were legally
unsustainable as they were contrary to Regulations 4, 5 and 6 of the
UGC Regulations, 2018.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that
Advertisement No.63/2024 has its genesis in the very same
Memorandum dated 11.11.2022 and incorporates an identical selection
mechanism, which already stands declared unlawful by this Court and
as such, the entire selection process arising out of Advertisement No.
63/2024 is inherently vitiated, void ab initio and liable to be set-aside on
the principle of complete parity with the petitioners in Asha Rani’s case
(supra).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that
the petitioners are not estopped from questioning the legality of the
MOHD YAKUB
2026.07.16 13:59
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
CWP-15967-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 5
selection process merely because they participated therein. In this
regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar,
(2019) 20 SCC 17, wherein it has been held that participation in a
selection process does not bar a candidate from challenging a process
which is fundamentally illegal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and the
respondent/Commission opposes the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent/Commission
have argued that the Haryana Public Service Commission is well within
its statutory and administrative powers has prescribed a written
examination comprising the Screening Test and Subject Knowledge Test
(SKT) for the purpose of shortlisting and assessing the comparative
merit of a large number of candidates applying for the academic posts.
Learned counsel for respondent/Commission have further submitted that
the eligibility conditions, minimum qualifying marks and various stages
of the selection process were clearly prescribed in Advertisement
No.63/2024 dated 02.08.2024, and the petitioners participated in the
selection process without raising any objection at the relevant stage. It is
further contended that the petitioners, having participated in the
selection process, cleared the Screening Test, and thereafter, failed to
secure the prescribed minimum qualifying marks of 35% in the Subject
Knowledge Test, cannot now be permitted to challenge the validity of
MOHD YAKUB
2026.07.16 13:59
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
CWP-15967-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 6
the impugned advertisement, the selection criteria or the evaluation
process.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/Commission have
further argued that since the petitioners participated in the selection
process after accepting its terms and conditions, they cannot challenge
the same after being unsuccessful. It is further submitted that the high
rate of failure in the Subject Knowledge Test, by itself, cannot be a
ground to invalidate the selection process, as it merely reflects the
rigorous standards adopted by the respondent/Commission to ensure the
selection of suitable candidates for appointments in the field of higher
education.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record with their able assistance.
11. The controversy involved in the present petition is no
longer res integra. This Court in CWP-19612-2026 titled as Renu
Kumari Rohal v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 03.07.2026,
dealt with a similar challenge to Advertisement No.43 of 2024 for the
post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) involving an identical selection
scheme under the same Memorandum dated 11.11.2022 and the
framework of the UGC Regulations, 2018. The relevant observations
recorded in the said judgment, in brief form, are reproduced
hereunder:
7. It is well settled that a candidate who knowingly
participates in a selection process with full knowledge of
the prescribed procedure, criteria and terms of the
MOHD YAKUB
2026.07.16 13:59
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
CWP-15967-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 7
advertisement cannot subsequently challenge the same
merely because the result is unfavourable. Participation
without protest amounts to acquiescence and the candidate
cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate.
8. Having voluntarily participated in the process, the
petitioner is estopped from questioning the selection
procedure on grounds which were available at the time of
participation, as entertaining such challenges would
undermine the finality of the recruitment process.
9. Though reliance has been placed upon Dr.
(Major) Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar and others, (2019)
20 SCC 17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar
vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1125, after
considering Meeta Sahai (supra), has clarified that where
a candidate knowingly participates in a recruitment
process without raising any objection despite having the
opportunity to do so, such challenge ordinarily cannot be
entertained unless the illegality was incapable of being
foreseen or amounted to a constitutional violation.
10. In the present case, the petitioner had full
knowledge of the applicable UGC Regulations and the
selection procedure at the stage of issuance of the
advertisement, yet chose to participate and approached
this Court only after being declared unsuccessful. The
alleged illegality was neither unforeseen nor incapable of
challenge at the relevant stage.
11. The aforesaid principle has also been reiterated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha Sharma vs. The
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and another, 2024 INSC
615. The same view has consistently been followed in
Ranjan Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others, (2014) 16
SCC 187; Madras Institute of Development Studies and
MOHD YAKUB
2026.07.16 13:59
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
CWP-15967-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 8
another vs. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others, (2016) 1
SCC 454; Union of India and others vs. S. Vinodh Kumar
and others, (2007) 8 SCC 100; Sadananda Halo and
others vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikhand and others, (2008) 4
SCC 619; and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh
Kumar and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706.
12. Consequently, a challenge by an unsuccessful
candidate to the advertisement or the prescribed selection
process is not maintainable in the facts of the present case.
13. The State adopted the UGC Regulations vide
memo dated 11.11.2022 with certain modifications.
However, the petitioner has not challenged the validity of
the said memo. In Dhani Ram Chaudhary vs. State of
Haryana and another, 2005 (1) SCT 571, this Court held
that where the governing rule itself is not challenged, it is
presumed to have been accepted by the petitioner.
14. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan vs. Sanyam
Lodha, (2011) 13 SCC 262, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that in the absence of a challenge to the validity of the
governing rule, the Court ought not to read down or modify
the same.
15. Therefore, in the absence of any challenge to the
memo dated 11.11.2022, the relief sought by the petitioner
cannot be granted.
16. The UGC Regulations framed under the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 prescribe
minimum standards under Entry 66 of List I, while Entry
25 of List III enables the State to legislate on education
subject to the constitutional scheme.
17. The additional Screening Test and Subject
Knowledge Test introduced by the State merely enhance the
scrutiny while maintaining the minimum standards
MOHD YAKUB
2026.07.16 13:59
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
CWP-15967-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 9
prescribed under the UGC Regulations. The decision in
Mandeep Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others,
2025 INSC 834, turned on dilution of UGC standards and
is distinguishable.
18. The UGC Regulations prescribe only the
minimum benchmark. They do not prohibit the State from
prescribing higher standards, provided the minimum
standards are not diluted.
19. The impugned selection process supplements,
rather than supplants, the UGC Regulations by introducing
additional stages intended to secure greater merit without
altering the prescribed minimum eligibility.
20. The Constitution Bench judgment in Dr. Preeti
Srivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC
120, recognizes that the State may prescribe qualifications
or standards higher than those prescribed by the Union so
long as the minimum standards are not diluted.
21. Likewise, in State of Tamil Nadu and another
vs. Adhiyaman Education & Research Institute and
others, (1995) 4 SCC 104, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that while State legislation cannot dilute Central
standards, it is permissible to prescribe higher standards
or qualifications for shortlisting where the circumstances
so warrant.
22. The additional stages of scrutiny prescribed by
the recruiting authority merely render the selection process
more rigorous and cannot be regarded as repugnant to the
UGC Regulations or violative of Article 254 of the
Constitution.
23. It is always open to the employer to evolve a
rational procedure for selecting the best candidates. In
Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit
MOHD YAKUB
2026.07.16 13:59
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
CWP-15967-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 10
Kumar Potdar, 1994 INSC 398, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court recognized that screening or shortlisting is
permissible where a large number of candidates apply for
limited vacancies.
24. The same principle has recently been reiterated
in Allahabad University vs. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey)
etc., 2025 AIR SC 195, wherein it was held that enhanced
norms for restricting the zone of consideration are
permissible, provided they are neither arbitrary nor
contrary to the governing statutory provisions.
25. Consequently, conducting a Screening Test or
Subject Knowledge Test does not violate the UGC
Regulations, and the State Government is competent to
prescribe higher or more rigorous standards in furtherance
of merit, so long as the minimum standards prescribed
under the UGC Regulations are not diluted.
12. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, the
petitioners participated in the selection process under Advertisement
No.63/2024 with full knowledge of the prescribed criteria. After
qualifying the Screening Test, they failed to clear the Subject
Knowledge Test and thereafter, challenged the selection process only
after being declared unsuccessful. The petitioners’ reliance on Asha
Rani’s case (supra) cannot be accepted as this issue has already been
considered and decided by this Court in Renu Kumari Rohal’s case
(supra), wherein it was held that the State is competent to prescribe
additional screening tests. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have
not challenged the State Memorandum dated 11.11.2022, which forms
the basis of the impugned advertisement. The additional screening tests
MOHD YAKUB
2026.07.16 13:59
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
CWP-15967-2026 & CONNECTED CASES 11
only supplement the UGC Regulations and do not dilute the minimum
standards prescribed therein.
13. In view of the foregoing discussions and the settled legal
position, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned
advertisement or the selection process conducted thereunder. The
contentions raised by the petitioners are devoid of merit and are
accordingly rejected. Consequently, all the present writ petitions stand
dismissed.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
15. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected cases.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
15.07.2026
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB
2026.07.16 13:59
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
