IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 Dr. Basanti .... Petitioner Versus Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate, and Mr. Nishant Sindhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, and Mr. Nilesh Kant Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent-University.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing clause 51 of advertisement 01/2025 to the extent post of Associate Professor (Biochemistry) has been advertised therein; the claim is in violation of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2018 UGC Regulations’). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondent University to conduct interviews for the post in question and appoint the petitioner against it.

2. Learned counsel for the University, on instructions, has submitted that total four candidates had applied for the post in question, of whom only one candidate, i.e., petitioner, was found eligible. In these submits that the decision to re-advertise the posts will be taken by the University in due course.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the University’s decision of not to conduct the interviews is violative of the 2018 UGC Regulations. He has referred to Table 2 of the Regulations prescribing ‘Methodology for University and College Teachers for calculating Academic/Research Score’, to contend that in terms therewith on receiving the applications the University was required to make assessment of candidates based upon the material produced, such as copy of publications, project sanction letter, utilisation and competition certificate, etc. The process had to be undergone leading to the interviews which could not have been cancelled. He also submitted that the post was advertised earlier also by the University twice over, vide advertisements PR-01 and PR- 08 of 2024, as mentioned in the instant advertisement itself, but appointments were not made. The decision not to make the appointments again is arbitrary, and a direction needs to be issued to make assessment as per methodology provided in Table 2 and make appointments.

4. Considering the submissions, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. The decision taken by the University not to hold interviews is for the reason only one of the applicants/petitioner has been found eligible. It goes without saying that the higher academic positions in the University are required to be filled by making selection out of the pool of best available talent. And in case due to adequate number of applicants not can be taken to it. The impugned clause 51 incorporated in the advertisement is also to that effect. It provides, ‘… the process of shortlisting/selection will be carried out for filling up only that many advertised posts which satisfy atleast 1:3 ratio for advertised number of posts to the number of eligible candidates e.g. if there are 7 eligible applicants for three advertised posts, then selection shall be made only against two posts’. The decision of not holding the interviews has been taken in the light of this clause in the advertisement, and this Court finds nothing arbitrary or illegal about it for the reasons already recorded hereinbefore. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Table 2 in the 2018 UGC Regulations is misplaced, as it cannot be read as a mandate to the University to hold interviews even if 1:3 ratio between the advertised posts and eligible applicants is not met. The methodology, including the academic/research scores provided under Table 2, is only to make assessment of scores of the candidates for the purpose of selec