Meenakshi And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
1
CWP-5402-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
246 CWP-5402-2023
Date of Decision: 07.09.2026
Meenakshi and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Mehta, Addl. AG Haryana.
Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for respondent No.5.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing instructions dated
11.11.2022 (Annexure P/5), whereby respondents No.1 and 2 while issuing
revised minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other
academic staff in an illegal and arbitrary manner has changed the required
minimum qualification for appointment of Assistant Professors in complete
violation of judgment of this Court dated 07.11.2022 and contrary to the
Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service, Rules 1986 as
amended from time to time. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2
CWP-5402-2023
nature of mandamus directing respondents No.2 to 4 not to consider the
candidates with qualification of M.Sc. in other allied subjects (i.e. Bio-
Technology, Bio-Chemistry, Microbiology Genetic etc.) for appointment to
the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Botany as this very issue of
relevancy of other allied subjects to subject of Botany, has already been
decided by this Court judgment dated 07.11.2022 passed in CWP-2510-2017
and same has attained finality as respondents No.1 and 2 have not
challenged the same till date. Further directing respondents No.2 to 4 not to
give appointment to ineligible candidate, who is not having qualification of
M.Sc in Botany but M.Sc in Bio Technology. The interview for post of
Assistant Professor in subject of Botany was conducted on 10.03.2023 and a
total 29 candidates appeared for interview. However, without even declaring
the result of selection, it has come to the knowledge of petitioners that
respondent No.4 has sent the case for approval of appointment to respondent
No.3 University on 13.03.2023 of a candidate who does not even possess
qualification of M.Sc in Botany but he is having qualification of M.Sc in Bio
Technology.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia , contends that the
petitioners participated in the selection process initiated pursuant to
advertisement dated 17.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) for filling up various posts
on regular basis, including one post of Assistant Professor in the subject of
Botany. The petitioners possess M.Sc. degrees in Botany and have also
qualified the CSIR-UGC eligibility test. Learned counsel submits that the
eligibility qualifications for the post in question were prescribed in terms of
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
3
CWP-5402-2023
the instructions dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Director
General Higher Education, Haryana.
2.1 Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.4 issued a
common interview letter dated 06.02.2023 to all the candidates and the
interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Botany was held on
10.03.2023. A total of 29 candidates appeared in the interview and 27
candidates possessed M.Sc. in Botany, whereas two candidates possessed
M.Sc. in Biotechnology. The petitioners contend that they came to know at
the time of interview that candidates possessing postgraduate qualifications
other than M.Sc. in Botany were also being considered for the post in
question.
Learned counsel submits that, immediately thereafter, the
2.2
petitioners submitted a representation dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-7)
before the concerned authorities, requesting that candidates possessing
postgraduate qualifications in subjects other than Botany should not be
considered for the post of Assistant Professor in Botany. It was also pointed
out that the syllabus of Botany and the allied subjects was different and,
therefore, consideration of candidates possessing qualifications in subjects
other than Botany was wholly impermissible.
2.3 Learned counsel then refers to Appendix B to Rule 7 of the
Haryana Education (College Cadre) Group B Service Rules, 1986, as
amended from time to time, forming part of Annexure P-8 (colly.), and
submits that the qualification prescribed therein for direct recruitment to the
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
4
CWP-5402-2023
post of College Lecturer requires a good academic record with at least 55%
marks or an equivalent Grade B in the seven-point scale at the Master's
Degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an
equivalent degree from a foreign University. Learned counsel submits that
the statutory Rules thus specifically prescribe a postgraduate qualification in
the relevant subject .
2.4 Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid statutory
Rules were amended from time to time, including by notification dated
29.10.2002, but the requirement of a postgraduate qualification in the
relevant subject continued to remain the governing qualification. It is
contended that the subsequent instructions dated 11.11.2022 could not have
altered or enlarged the qualification prescribed under the statutory Rules by
introducing the expression "concerned/relevant/allied subject".
2.5 Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment dated
07.11.2022 passed by this Court in CWP No.2510 of 2017, Surender Singh
and others v. State of Haryana and others, along with connected cases
(Annexure P-6), and submits that the very issue regarding the eligibility of
candidates possessing postgraduate qualifications in allied subjects for
appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor in Botany and Zoology had
already been considered by this Court. Learned counsel submits that this
Court held that where the governing Rules and the advertisement prescribe a
postgraduate qualification in the relevant subject, a candidate possessing an
appropriate or equivalent qualification in another subject cannot be treated
as eligible in the absence of a specific provision to that effect.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
5
CWP-5402-2023
2.6 Learned counsel further submits that, in the aforesaid judgment,
this Court had considered the candidature of persons possessing
postgraduate degrees in Genetics and Human Genetics for appointment to
the posts of Assistant Professor in Botany and Zoology and held that such
qualifications could not be treated as the requisite qualification in Botany or
Zoology, respectively, merely on the ground that the candidates claimed the
said subjects to be relevant to the posts in question.
2.7 Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment was
rendered on 07.11.2022, whereas the impugned instructions were issued on
11.11.2022, i.e. within four days thereof. Learned counsel further submits
that instead of implementing the judgment, the respondents issued the
instructions dated 11.11.2022 introducing the expression "allied subject",
thereby enlarging the eligibility criteria for appointment as Assistant
Professor. It is contended that the said instructions were issued contrary to
the judgment dated 07.11.2022 and the Haryana Education (College Cadre)
Group B Service Rules, 1986, as amended from time to time.
2.8 Learned counsel further contends that it is a settled proposition
of law that executive or administrative instructions cannot override statutory
Rules. It is, therefore, submitted that the qualification prescribed under the
statutory Rules could not have been altered, enlarged or diluted merely by
issuance of administrative instructions dated 11.11.2022 without amending
the statutory Rules. Consequently, the advertisement dated 17.12.2022,
insofar as it permits consideration of candidates possessing postgraduate
qualifications in allied subjects for the post of Assistant Professor in Botany,
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
6
CWP-5402-2023
cannot be sustained to that extent and the selection process is required to be
conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory Rules.
2.9 Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.4, after
conducting the interview on 10.03.2023, had not officially declared the
result; however, they came to know that respondent No.4 had recommended
the candidature of a candidate possessing M.Sc. in Biotechnology and had
forwarded the case to respondent No.3 for approval on 13.03.2023. The
petitioners contend that such recommendation was wholly illegal and
arbitrary, being contrary to the qualification prescribed for the post of
Assistant Professor in Botany.
2.10 Learned counsel finally submits that the grievance raised by the
petitioners was considered by this Court on the first date of hearing, when
notice was directed to be issued to respondent No.4 for 29.09.2023 and, in
the meantime, it was directed that, if any recommendation had been made
for appointment in the category of Assistant Professor (Botany), the
appointment letter shall not be issued to a person who does not have 55%
marks in the subject.
2.11 Accordingly, learned counsel contends that the respondents
could not have treated candidates possessing M.Sc. in Biotechnology or
other allied subjects as eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in Botany
merely on the basis of the instructions dated 11.11.2022, when Appendix B
to Rule 7 of the statutory Rules prescribes a Master's degree in the relevant
subject, and the issue regarding the scope of the expression "relevant
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
7
CWP-5402-2023
subject" had already been considered by this Court in its judgment dated
07.11.2022.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the
advertisement dated 17.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) expressly stipulated that the
conditions relating to eligibility, qualifications, relaxation, age, reservation
policy and pay scales would be governed by the latest norms/guidelines
notified by the Director General Higher Education, Haryana (DGHE) on
11.11.2022. It is, thus, contended that the instructions dated 11.11.2022
(Annexure P-5) were already in force when the advertisement was issued
and formed part of the eligibility criteria governing the selection.
Respondent No.4, being an affiliated educational institution conducting the
selection in accordance with the norms prescribed by the competent
authority, was bound to follow the aforesaid instructions and could not
deviate therefrom. It is, therefore, submitted that the challenge to the said
instructions, after the petitioners had themselves participated in the selection
process, is wholly belated and untenable.
3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners, having
participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the applicable
eligibility conditions, without raising any objection at the relevant stage,
cannot subsequently turn around and challenge the very criteria under which
they had applied and participated. Learned counsel further submits that the
present writ petition is an attempt to assail the selection criteria only after
the petitioners came to know that their chances of selection were
comparatively lower. Such conduct, it is contended, attracts the settled
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
8
CWP-5402-2023
principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process without
protest cannot subsequently challenge the validity of the selection criteria
upon finding the result adverse to him. On this ground alone, the petition
deserves dismissal as being barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
3.2 Learned counsel further places reliance upon the judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Bhupinder Kumar Sharma v.
State of Punjab and others, CWP No.4466 of 2020 (O&M), 2021 (3) SCT
45 and submits that a candidate, having consciously participated in a
selection process with full knowledge of the applicable rules and eligibility
conditions, cannot subsequently turn around and challenge the validity of the
very rules or selection criteria governing such process. It is contended that
the petitioners, having participated in the selection process pursuant to the
advertisement dated 17.12.2022, without raising any objection to the
eligibility criteria at the relevant stage, are precluded from assailing the
instructions dated 11.11.2022 after participating in the process.
3.3 Learned counsel further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Anand Yadav and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, (2021) 12 SCC 390 , and submits that matters concerning academic
qualifications, their equivalence and their functional relevance are ordinarily
required to be left to the domain of educationists and expert bodies, subject
to the governing statutory provisions and regulations. It is argued that this
Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
ought not to substitute its own opinion for that of the competent academic or
expert authorities, particularly in matters requiring assessment of the
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
9
CWP-5402-2023
relevance or equivalence of educational qualifications. Learned counsel
further submits that the employer and the competent educational authorities
are best placed to determine whether a particular qualification is suitable for
appointment to the post in question.
4. Learned State Counsel reiterates the stand taken in the short
reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and, with reference to para 6
thereof, submits that the instructions dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-5) were
issued pursuant to the clarification furnished by the University Grants
Commission on 16.04.2008 (Annexure R-1), wherein it was clarified that for
appointment to the post of Lecturer in a particular subject, a candidate could
possess a postgraduate degree in the concerned or related subject and qualify
NET in the concerned or related subject. It was further clarified that,
depending upon the requirement of the University/College, a candidate
having M.Sc. in Genetics and NET in Life Sciences could be considered for
appointment in Genetics or a related subject such as Zoology.
4.1 Learned State Counsel further submits that, as per the
equivalence book of Kurukshetra University, M.Sc. Genetics includes Plant
Genetics and Human Genetics; Plant Genetics is an integral part of Botany,
whereas Human Genetics is an integral part of Zoology. Thus, Genetics is a
related subject to Botany and Zoology. Learned State Counsel further
submits that a similar approach has been adopted in the equivalence list of
Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, wherein M.Sc. Human Genetics
and M.Sc. Botany and Zoology have been recognized as equivalent to M.Sc.
Bioscience.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
10
CWP-5402-2023
5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners came to know on 10.03.2023 that candidates possessing M.Sc.
degrees in Biotechnology and other allied subjects were being interviewed
for the post in question, contrary to the essential qualifications prescribed
under the governing Rules. It is further submitted that the reliance placed by
learned State Counsel upon the UGC clarification dated 16.04.2008 does not
advance the case of the respondents, as the said clarification was issued in
response to a specific query, the particulars of which have not been
disclosed in the short reply.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the paper book with their able assistance. The controversy which
arises for consideration in the present petition is a narrow one, namely,
whether the eligibility qualification prescribed in the instructions dated
11.11.2022 issued by the Director General Higher Education, Haryana,
could enlarge or alter the essential qualification prescribed under the
statutory Rules governing the post of Assistant Professor in the College
Cadre.
7. The petitioners participated in the selection process pursuant to
the advertisement issued for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor
in the subject of Botany. The record shows that the petitioners possess
postgraduate degrees in Botany. Petitioner No.1 had passed M.Sc. Botany in
2016 and petitioner No.2 had passed M.Sc. Botany in 2015. Both the
petitioners had also qualified the CSIR-UGC examination. The interview for
the post of Assistant Professor in Botany was conducted on 10.03.2023 and
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
11
CWP-5402-2023
29 candidates appeared therein. It was during the course of the interview that
the petitioners came to know that, apart from the candidates possessing
M.Sc. Botany, candidates possessing M.Sc. Biotechnology had also been
permitted to participate in the selection process.
8. The relevant statutory provision governing the qualification for
the post requires consideration. The Haryana Government, Higher Education
Department, Notification dated 11.04.1986, prescribing the Haryana
Education (College Cadre) Group B Service Rules, 1986, contained
Appendix B, which, in respect of College Lecturers, prescribed the
following qualification for direct recruitment:-
Academic qualifications,
and experience if any, for
appointment other than
by direct recruitment.
Academic qualifications and
experience, if any, for direct
recruitment.
“Sr.
Designation
of Post
No.
(a) Good academic record with at least
second class (C in the seven point scale)
Master’s degree in a relevant subject
from an Indian University or equivalent
degree from foreign University; and
College
1.
Lecturers
As in column 3
Thereafter, the aforesaid Rules were amended on 29.10.2002.
Appendix B, as substituted by the said amendment, prescribed, inter alia ,
the following qualification:-
Appendix B
Sr. Academic qualifications and experience, if any, for
Designation of Post
No.
appointment other than by direct recruitment
(a) Good academic record with at least 55% of the
marks or, an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale
with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the
Master’s Degree level in the relevant subject from an
Indian University, or an equivalent degree from a
Foreign University.
Lecturer in Humanities,
Social Sciences, Sciences,
Commerce, Education,
Physical Education, Foreign
Languages and Law
2.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
12
CWP-5402-2023
Thus, even after the amendment of the Rules, the essential
qualification continued to be linked to the relevant subject .
9. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the instructions dated
11.11.2022, which form the basis of the impugned recruitment process.
Annexure P-5, at page 42 of the paper book, prescribes the eligibility for the
post of Assistant Professor in the following terms:-
1. Assistant Professor
Eligibility
“i) A Master’s degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever
of the grading system is follows) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian
University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university.”
9.1 A plain comparison of the statutory Rules with the aforesaid
instructions makes the position clear. The statutory Rules prescribe a
Master’s degree in the relevant subject , whereas the instructions dated
11.11.2022 introduce the additional expression “allied subject” . The
question, therefore, is not whether the authorities could prescribe the manner
in which the selection was to be conducted, but whether, by an
administrative instruction, the substantive essential qualification prescribed
under the statutory Rules could be enlarged so as to make a candidate
possessing a postgraduate degree in an allied subject eligible for
appointment to a particular subject.
10. In my considered view, the answer has to be in the negative. An
executive instruction may supplement the statutory Rules where the Rules
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
13
CWP-5402-2023
are silent, but it cannot amend, supersede or enlarge the substantive
qualification prescribed by the statutory Rules. The expression “relevant
subject” occurring in the statutory Rules cannot be substituted by
“concerned/relevant/allied subject” merely by issuing administrative
instructions. Such an exercise, if permissible at all, would require an
appropriate amendment of the statutory Rules themselves.
10.1 The principle is well settled that executive instructions cannot
override statutory provisions. Reliance is being placed on paragraphs 6 to 10
of the Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Vijay
Singh and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2005(2) AWC 1191 . The
relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:-
“6. It is settled legal proposition that executive instructions
cannot override the statutory provisions (vide B.N. Nagarajan
v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1962; Sant Ram Sharma v.
State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910; Union of India v. Majji
Jangamayya, AIR 1977 SC 757; B.N. Nagarajan v. State of
Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1676; P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P.,
(1987)3 SCC 622 : (AIR 1987 SC 1676); M/s. Beopar Sehayak
(P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Nath, AIR 1987 SC 2111; State of
Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, AIR 1989 SC
1133; Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC
166; Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. Mohan Lal
Mehrotra, 1991(3) S.C.T. 581 : AIR 1991 SC 2288; State of
Madhya Pradesh v. G.S. Dall & Flour Mills, AIR 1991 SC 772;
Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India,
AIR 1998 SC 431; C. Rangaswamaeah v. Karnataka
Lokayukta, 1998(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 547 : AIR 1998 SC 2496.
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
14
CWP-5402-2023
7. Executive instructions cannot amend or supersede the
statutory Rules or add something therein, nor the orders be
issued in contravention of the statutory rules for the reason that
an administrative instruction is not a statutory rule nor does it
have any force of law; while statutory Rules have full force of
law provided the same are not in conflict with the provisions of
the Act (vide State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya, AIR 1961
SC 751; and State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone, AIR 1981
SC 711).
8. In Union of India v. Somasundaram Vishwanath, AIR 1988
SC 2255, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that if there is a
conflict between the executive instruction and the Rules framed
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Rules
will prevail. Similarly, if there is a conflict in the Rules made
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and the law,
the law will prevail.
9. Similar view has been reiterated in Union of India v. Rakesh
Kumar, 2001(2) SCT 1085 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 1877; Swapan
Kumar Pal v. Samitabhar Chakraborty, 2001(2) SCT 1104 (SC)
: AIR 2001 SC 2353; Khet Singh v. Union of India, 2002(2)
R.C.R.(Criminal) 277 : (2002)4 SCC 380 : (AIR 2002 SC
1450); Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra,
2003(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 819 : (2003)5 SCC 413 : (AIR 2003 SC
3502) and Delhi Development Authority v. Joginder S. Monga,
(2004)2 SCC 297 : (AIR 2004 SC 3291), observing that
statutory rules create enforceable rights which cannot be taken
away by issuing executive instructions.
10. In Ram Ganesh Tripathi v. State of U.P., 1997(1) SCT 494
(SC) : AIR 1997 SC 1446, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered a similar controversy and held that any executive
instruction/order which runs counter to or is inconsistent with
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
15
CWP-5402-2023
the statutory rules cannot be enforced, rather deserves to be
quashed as having no force of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under (Para 9) :- "They (respondents) relied upon
the order passed by the State. This order also deserves to be
quashed as it is not consistent with the statutory rules. It
appears to have been passed by the Government to oblige the
respondents and similarly situated ad hoc appointees."
11. The aforesaid principle is also fortified by the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others, (2018) 3 SCC 55 . In that case, while considering a situation where
the advertisement and the statutory Rules were at variance, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the statutory prescription would prevail and that
any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory Rules has to
give way to the statutory prescription. The Court observed that recruitment
can only be made in accordance with the Rules and an error in the
advertisement cannot override the Rules or create a right in favour of a
candidate who is otherwise ineligible under the Rules.
11.1 The principle squarely applies to the present case. If the
statutory Rules require a postgraduate degree in the relevant subject, an
administrative instruction cannot, by adding the expression “allied subject”,
create an additional class of eligible candidates which is not contemplated
by the Rules.
12. The conclusion reached above also finds substantial support
from the earlier judgment of this Court dated 07.11.2022 in CWP No.2510
of 2017, Surender Singh and others and connected cases . The said
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
16
CWP-5402-2023
judgment dealt with the same College Cadre and the issue of candidates
possessing postgraduate qualifications in subjects other than the subject
against which appointment was sought. The Court noticed that the
advertisement prescribed the qualification of a Master’s degree in the
relevant subject and ultimately directed that, for the posts of Assistant
Professor in Botany and Zoology, candidates having postgraduate degrees in
the respective subjects alone be treated as eligible.
12.1 The said judgment further considered the argument that an
administrative decision could treat a different postgraduate qualification as
equivalent. The Court observed that, in the absence of a prescription in the
eligibility clause making such equivalent qualification eligible, a candidate
possessing only such qualification could not be treated as eligible. This
aspect assumes considerable significance in the present case. The issue
before this Court is not whether M.Sc. Biotechnology is academically
equivalent to M.Sc. Botany. No such exercise is required to be undertaken.
The question is whether a candidate possessing M.Sc. Biotechnology can be
treated as eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in Botany by virtue of
the instructions dated 11.11.2022, notwithstanding the qualification
prescribed under the applicable statutory Rules. The answer, for the reasons
recorded hereinabove, is clearly in the negative.
13. The objection raised on behalf of respondent No.4 that the
petitioners, having participated in the selection process, cannot subsequently
challenge the eligibility condition, also does not merit acceptance. The facts
of the present case are materially distinguishable from a case where a
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
17
CWP-5402-2023
candidate participates in a selection process with full knowledge of the
prescribed condition and, after being unsuccessful, seeks to challenge the
same condition merely because the result has gone against him. Here, the
petitioners have challenged the very legality of permitting candidates
possessing a different postgraduate qualification to compete for the post of
Assistant Professor in Botany. More importantly, the petitioners approached
this Court within days of the interview. The interview was held on
10.03.2023 and the present petition was filed on 15.03.2023. The record
further shows that the petitioners came to know during the interview that
candidates possessing M.Sc. Biotechnology had been permitted to
participate in the selection process.
13.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v.
State of Bihar and others, (2019) 20 SCC 17 , considered a similar
preliminary objection. The Court held, in substance, that participation in a
selection process does not amount to acquiescence in an illegality committed
in the process. The Court distinguished between acceptance of the
prescribed procedure and acceptance of an illegality in that procedure. Thus,
a candidate does not, merely by participating in the selection, lose the right
to question a selection process which is contrary to the governing statutory
provisions.
13.2 The principle is particularly applicable here because the
petitioners have not challenged the mere procedure of selection after having
failed therein; rather, they have questioned the legality of permitting persons
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
18
CWP-5402-2023
lacking the prescribed subject qualification to compete for a subject-specific
post. The challenge was also raised without undue delay.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance
upon the judgment in Anand Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Civil Appeal
No.2850 of 2020 , decided on 12.10.2020. The said judgment does not
advance the case of the respondents. In Anand Yadav , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was concerned with the question of equivalence of educational
qualifications and the limited scope of judicial interference in matters
requiring consideration by academic experts.
14.1. The present case stands on a different footing. This Court is not
undertaking any exercise to determine whether M.Sc. Biotechnology is
academically equivalent to M.Sc. Botany. No opinion on such equivalence is
being expressed. The issue is confined to the legality of the recruitment
authority treating a candidate possessing a postgraduate degree in an allied
subject as eligible in the face of the qualification prescribed by the statutory
Rules. That is a question of interpretation and application of the governing
Rules and not an exercise of academic equivalence.
15. It is also relevant to notice that the petitioners had specifically
approached the competent authorities before filing the present petition and
had raised their objection regarding consideration of candidates possessing
qualifications other than M.Sc. Botany for the post of Assistant Professor in
Botany. The record further shows that the petitioners had relied upon the
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
19
CWP-5402-2023
judgment dated 07.11.2022 and requested that candidates from subjects
other than Botany should not be considered for the post in question.
16. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered
view that the instructions dated 11.11.2022, insofar as they introduce “allied
subject” as an additional basis of eligibility for the post of Assistant
Professor, cannot be relied upon to enlarge the essential qualification
prescribed by the statutory Rules. The selection process, therefore, has to
conform to the qualification prescribed under the applicable statutory Rules.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider and reframe the
selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Botany
from the stage of determination of eligibility and thereafter proceed strictly
in accordance with the essential qualification prescribed under the applicable
statutory Rules. While doing so, candidates possessing a postgraduate
degree in a subject other than the relevant subject of Botany shall not be
treated as eligible merely by virtue of the instructions dated 11.11.2022.
17.1 The respondents shall accordingly reframe/reconsider the merit
and selection process in accordance with law and proceed thereafter in terms
of the applicable Rules. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not
undertaken any exercise of determining equivalence between M.Sc.
Biotechnology and M.Sc. Botany, nor is any direction being issued for
appointment of either of the petitioners. The competent authority shall
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
20
CWP-5402-2023
undertake the consequential exercise strictly in accordance with the statutory
Rules and the observations made hereinabove.
18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
07.09.2026
Puneet Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
PUNEET CHAWLA
2026.09.11 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document