Back
rules HPSC cannot change selection criteria six days before interview
The has quashed the ’s (HPSC) attempt to introduce minimum qualifying marks for interviews during the recruitment of Assistant Professors for Government Medical Colleges, ruling that a recruiting authority cannot alter eligibility criteria after the selection process has commenced—especially once the list of shortlisted candidates is already public.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while allowing a batch of writ petitions, directed the HPSC to re-evaluate the selection strictly based on the original advertisement, which awarded 75 marks for pre-merit academic credentials and 25 marks for interview, without any minimum for the .
“Rules of the Game” cannot be rewritten mid-play
The dispute arose from an advertisement issued on by the (DGMER), for 189 posts of Teaching Faculty (Assistant Professor) in Super Speciality and Broad Speciality disciplines. The notified scheme prescribed 75 marks under a detailed pre-merit academic criteria and 25 marks for interview, with no minimum mentioned for either component. A corrigendum issued on made no change to this scheme.
The HPSC was entrusted with conducting the interviews. On , it published the list of shortlisted candidates and announced that interviews would be held on . However, on —just six days before the interviews were to begin—the HPSC issued an announcement prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the interview: 50% for the general category and 45% for reserved categories.
The petitioners, doctors working as Senior Residents at , had applied under the BCA category for posts in Orthopaedics and Anesthesiology. They scored 44 and 40 marks respectively on the and were called for interview. Both appeared but failed to clear the newly introduced threshold, leading to their exclusion from the final result declared on .
Petitioners: “This is a textbook case of changing rules mid-game”
Senior Advocates for the petitioners argued that the advertisement contained no mention of minimum marks for interview, and that the HPSC’s announcement directly contravened the settled principle laid down in K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008), and Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala (2023)—that the selection criteria cannot be modified after the process has commenced. They also contended that against 189 posts, only 90 candidates were shortlisted, and the academic were more reflective of a candidate’s suitability for teaching roles than a hastily imposed interview .
HPSC defends as mere “” to maintain standards
The HPSC, represented by Senior Advocate , submitted that the interview remained worth 25 marks as originally advertised, and that prescribing minimum qualifying marks was merely a form of setting a to ensure high standards of competence. It argued that since candidates were being assessed solely on academic qualifications, the additional check was necessary.
Court draws sharp distinction: versus
Justice Brar rejected the HPSC’s argument, drawing a crucial distinction between the assigned to a stage and the introduction of a . “While the of a stage pertains to how much a component counts towards the aggregate, the answers a different question i.e. whether a candidate can be eliminated from consideration, regardless of aggregate merit,” the judgment stated. The court held that by setting minimum marks for the interview, the HPSC had “attempted to nullify the effect of the marks obtained in terms of the carefully curated .”
The court underscored that the selection scheme had been devised by the employer—DGMER, a specialised body regulating medical education—and that the HPSC was merely engaged to conduct interviews, not to modify the criteria. Relying on Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019), it reiterated that the employer is best placed to determine qualifications and standards.
Timing and transparency under scrutiny
The court also took a dim view of the timing of the HPSC’s announcement. The modification came after the shortlist was published and just six days before interviews, with the HPSC already aware of all shortlisted candidates. While no direct evidence of was found, the surrounding circumstances “cast an air of doubt around the methodology adopted,” the judge observed.
“Being a State-run recruiting agency, the respondent-HPSC cannot afford such doubts regarding its credibility as Caesar’s wife must remain above all suspicion ,” the judgment noted, quoting a famous legal maxim.
Applying the test of , the court held that the HPSC’s action was arbitrary and violated the principle of equality in public employment. It further noted that the absence of a written examination did not diminish the quality of the recruitment, as the were a detailed, multi-dimensional formula devised by experts.
Decision: Annulment of the impugned announcement and fresh evaluation
The court quashed the HPSC’s announcement dated and set aside the result of to the extent it excluded candidates for failing to meet the newly introduced qualifying marks. It directed the HPSC to re-evaluate and finalise the selection afresh solely on the basis of the original advertisement—by calculating aggregate merit out of 100 marks (75 for pre-merit academic credentials and 25 for interview) “without applying any minimum qualifying for the .”
The court also directed that successful candidates, if found eligible, be issued consequential appointment letters, with salary payable from the date of joining and notional benefits calculated from the date such benefits were disbursed to their batch-mates. In the case of one petitioner whose name had already been recommended for appointment, the petition was disposed of as infructuous.
The decision reinforces the constitutional safeguard against arbitrary changes in recruitment processes, sending a clear message that public confidence in selection mechanisms must not be undermined by last-minute alterations.
