Selection Committee Cannot Alter Essential Qualifications Mid-Process By Introducing 'Equivalence' Not Mentioned in Advertisement: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-13

HP High Court: Selection Committee Cannot Change Rules Mid-Game, Quashes Professor's Appointment

SHIMLA – In a significant ruling on recruitment law, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the appointment of an Assistant Professor, holding that a selection committee cannot alter essential educational qualifications midway through the selection process by introducing the concept of "equivalence" when it was not specified in the original job advertisement.

Justice Sandeep Sharma, presiding over the single-judge bench, allowed the writ petitions filed by Pankaj Kumar Singh and Dr. Sunny Choudhary, setting aside the appointment of one candidate and the waitlisting of another for the post of Assistant Professor in Agricultural Biotechnology at Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya (CSKHPKV).

---

Case Background

The university had advertised for the post of Assistant Professor (Agricultural Biotechnology) in March 2019, explicitly stating the essential qualification as an M.Sc. in the "concerned discipline." However, the Selection Committee entertained applications from candidates holding an M.Sc. in Biotechnology, a different degree, on the condition that they produce a certificate establishing its equivalence to M.Sc. (Agricultural Biotechnology).

Based on this, respondent No. 2 was appointed, and respondent No. 3 was placed on the waiting list, ahead of the petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Singh. The petitioners, who held the precise M.Sc. (Agricultural Biotechnology) degree, challenged this decision, arguing that the selected candidates were ineligible as per the advertisement and that the committee had unlawfully changed the eligibility criteria.

Arguments at the Bar

Petitioner's Counsel, Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, argued:

- The Selection Committee overstepped its authority by introducing the provision of "equivalent qualification" which was absent in both the advertisement and the university statutes.

- This change mid-process was arbitrary and designed to favour certain candidates who did not meet the specified criteria.

- The equivalence certificates themselves were invalid as they were not issued by a competent academic body after due deliberation.

Respondents' Counsel countered that:

- The Selection Committee, as an expert body, has the discretion to determine the suitability of candidates.

- The decision to accept an equivalent degree was within its purview, especially since other national bodies like the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) consider M.Sc. Biotechnology for related fields.

- Courts should not sit in appeal over the decisions of academic experts.

Court's Rationale and Key Observations

Justice Sandeep Sharma framed the core legal question as whether a Selection Committee "could have called upon certain candidates to provide equivalence certificate with regard to their qualification, especially when in advertisement notice, no provision of 'equivalent qualification' was provided."

The Court unequivocally held that the committee had no such power. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University , the bench observed:

"The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, which is midway could not have changed the essential qualification laid down in the advertisement... Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play."

The judgment emphasized that any deviation from the advertised qualifications is impermissible as it harms fairness and transparency. The Court noted:

"Any decision taken by the expert committee to call upon the private respondent as well as other similarly situate persons to provide equivalence certificate virtually amounts to changing the essential qualification, which was not within its competence."

The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the respondents, clarifying that while courts should defer to the wisdom of expert committees on the merits of candidates, this deference does not extend to situations where the committee illegally alters the fundamental eligibility criteria.

Furthermore, the Court found that the equivalence certificates were issued without proper authority. Under the University Statutes, only the Academic Council has the power to decide on equivalence, a procedure that was not followed in this case.

Final Decision and Implications

Based on this reasoning, the High Court delivered the following verdict:

1. The appointment of respondent No. 2 as Assistant Professor was quashed and set aside.

2. The placement of respondent No. 3 on the select panel was also nullified.

3. The University was directed to offer the appointment to the petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Singh, who was next on the waiting list among the eligible candidates.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder to recruiting bodies that the rules of selection are sacrosanct and cannot be altered after the process has commenced. It reinforces the principle that all potential applicants must have a clear and equal opportunity based on the criteria laid down in the initial advertisement.