Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankit And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 4 August, 2026
116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-22827-2026
Date of decision: 04.08.2026
Ankit and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate
for the respondent(s)-HPSC.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the memorandum dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued
by respondent No.1, advertisement dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued by
respondent No.2, the final result dated 12.02.2026 and result-II dated
17.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) declared by respondent No.2 and the provisional
appointment order dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent
No.1. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to conduct the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor
(College Cadre)-Hindi afresh, strictly in accordance with the UGC Regulations,
2018 as well as praying for grant of ad interim stay of the operation and effect
of the impugned appointment order dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure P-4).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the
NEHA
2026.08.06 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-22827-2026 -2-
petitioners participated in the selection process initiated pursuant to
advertisement No.52/2024 published on 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-2). He refers
to the memorandum dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by the
Government of Haryana purportedly adopting UGC Regulations. However, the
criteria determined by the UGC was deviated and a Subject Knowledge Test
was conducted, whereas, the UGC Regulations provide that an appointment is
to be made on the basis of an interview. As such, the case of the petitioners is
squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.661 of
2026 titled as Asha Rani and others Vs. State of Haryana and another along
with bunch of connected cases decided on 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) wherein,
reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mandeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025
INSC 834 and the memorandum dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) having been
declared illegal, the identical selection process for Assistant Professor (English)
under Advertisement No.48 of 2024 was set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that
Advertisement No.52/2024 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.52/2024 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).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the
petitioners are not estopped from questioning the legality of the selection
NEHA
2026.08.06 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-22827-2026 -3-
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.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel 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.52/2024 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 the impugned advertisement, the selection criteria or the
evaluation process.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/Commission have further
argued that since the petitioners participated in the selection process after
NEHA
2026.08.06 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-22827-2026 -4-
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.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
with their able assistance.
8. The controversy involved in the present petition is no longer res
integra. This Court in CWP-19612-2026 titled as Renu Kumari Rohal vs.
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
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.
NEHA
2026.08.06 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-22827-2026 -5-
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
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
NEHA
2026.08.06 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-22827-2026 -6-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
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 theNEHA
2026.08.06 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-22827-2026 -7-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
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.”
9. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioners
participated in the selection process under Advertisement No.52/2024 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 only supplement
NEHA
2026.08.06 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-22827-2026 -8-
the UGC Regulations and do not dilute the minimum standards prescribed
therein.
10. 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, the
present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
04.08.2026
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
NEHA
2026.08.06 17:53
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
