The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a selection committee must follow the recruitment criteria notified in the advertisement and cannot subsequently turn an interview or domain-knowledge assessment into a qualifying stage when no such minimum threshold was prescribed.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar delivered the judgment on September 16, 2026, while allowing a writ petition concerning recruitment to the post of Assistant at Chaudhary Bansi Lal University, Bhiwani.
Background
The petitioner had applied for the Assistant post under the BC-B category pursuant to Advertisement No. 2/2017. The recruitment process carried a total of 100 marks, with 80 marks assigned to computer typing, general aptitude, academic qualifications and work experience. The remaining 20 marks were divided between domain knowledge and interview.
The petitioner secured 35.55 marks under the first four components and claimed that he was the most meritorious candidate in his category. However, he received no marks for domain knowledge or interview and was declared “Not Found Suitable”. The University defended the decision, stating that the Selection Committee had examined his capability and suitability.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar noted that the notified scheme was a composite selection process rather than one predominantly dependent upon an interview. The advertisement did not prescribe minimum qualifying marks for either domain knowledge or interview, nor did it authorize the Selection Committee to reject a candidate solely on that basis.
The Court observed:
“Indubitably, no minimum qualifying marks having been prescribed for these components, the non-selection of the petitioner by the Selection Committee is arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement (supra).”
The Court further explained that the Selection Committee could not effectively make the interview a veto stage and thereby disregard the marks secured by a candidate in the other prescribed components.
It also held that introducing an undisclosed threshold affected the fairness of the recruitment process and amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The High Court allowed the petition and directed Chaudhary Bansi Lal University to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant and pass an appropriate order within six weeks from receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
If appointed, he would receive notional benefits from the date other selected candidates joined, while remuneration would be payable only from his actual date of joining.
Case Details:
Case Title: Jaibir Singh v. Chaudhary Bansi Lal University Bhiwani through its Registrar and another
Case Number: CWP-19879-2017
Judge: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Decision Date: 16 September 2026
