The Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down the Haryana Public Service Commission's (HPSC) decision to introduce minimum qualifying marks for interviews in the recruitment of 189 Assistant Professors. The posts were for Super Speciality and Broad Speciality disciplines in Haryana Government Medical Colleges.
The court ruled that HPSC changed the rules after candidates had already been shortlisted. This move, the court said, created doubts about the entire selection process.
High Court quashes HPSC cut-off criteria for medical college professors
The controversy began when HPSC introduced a new condition requiring candidates to score minimum marks in interviews. This condition was not part of the original advertisement. According to The Tribune, the court found this change unacceptable because it came after the shortlisting process was complete.
The High Court directed HPSC to re-evaluate and finalise the selection based on the criteria that were originally advertised. This means the commission must now go back to the rules that candidates knew about when they applied.
Court questions HPSC's timing and transparency
The timing of the change was a major issue. The court noted that the criteria were altered just six days before the interview process was scheduled to begin. At that point, HPSC already knew the details of the shortlisted candidates.
"Altering the criteria, while being aware of the details of the shortlisted candidates, merely six days before the interview process was scheduled to commence, has cast an air of doubt around the methodology adopted by the respondent-HPSC." — Punjab and Haryana High Court via The Tribune
This statement from the court highlights a key concern: changing rules at the last minute, when you already know who is in the race, can look unfair. Candidates who prepared for interviews under one set of rules suddenly faced a different standard.
What this means for the 189 Assistant Professor recruitment
The court's order is clear. HPSC must now redo the selection process for these 189 posts. The commission cannot use the new cut-off marks it introduced. Instead, it must follow the original advertisement criteria.
For the candidates, this is a significant relief. Those who were shortlisted under the original rules will now be evaluated without the surprise addition of minimum interview marks. The decision restores the process to what was originally promised.
This ruling also sends a broader message to recruitment bodies. According to LaWGiCo, the court has been firm on following established regulations. Changing rules mid-process, especially without proper notice, will not be tolerated.
Our Take: A fair decision that protects candidates
In our view, this is the right call. Recruitment processes work only when rules are stable and known in advance. When a commission changes criteria after seeing who is shortlisted, it undermines trust in the entire system.
The High Court's decision protects the candidates who played by the rules. It also holds HPSC accountable for its actions. The "air of doubt" the court mentioned is a serious concern — when public bodies act in ways that seem arbitrary, people lose faith in the process.
For the 189 Assistant Professor posts, the path forward is now clear: follow the original advertisement. For other recruitment agencies, this is a warning. You cannot change the goalposts after the game has started. The rules must be the same for everyone, from application to final selection.
This ruling is not just about 189 jobs. It is about fairness in public recruitment. When courts step in to protect that fairness, it benefits every candidate who trusts the system.