Ashish Sangwan vs Maharshi Dayanand University And Ors

CWP-16758-2015 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
206
CWP-16758-2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.11.2026
Ashish Sangwan
....Petitioner
Versus
Maharshi Dayanand University and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rajkapoor Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Aakash Singla, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for respondent No.2.
Mr. J.S. Sohal, Advocate
for Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Advocate
for respondents No.3 and 4.
Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.
CM-5447-CWP-2025
Prayer in the instant application filed under Section 151 of
CPC is for placing on record the documents as Annexure A-1.
Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. The
Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:42

CWP-16758-2015 2
CWP-16758-2015 (O&M)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari , for quashing the impugned selection of respondent
No.5/Rajani Devi for the post of Assistant Professor in subject of
English under General category with respondent No.3/College. Further
a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to select
and appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor in subject of
English in accordance with the selection criteria issued by respondent
No.2, by awarding proper marks.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , contends that
that respondent No.3/College advertised one post of Assistant Professor
in English (General Category) on a regular basis. The petitioner, being
fully eligible, applied for the said post. The Director General of Higher
Education (DGHE), Haryana, issued instructions (Annexure P-1) laying
down the criteria for the selection of lecturers in Government Aided
Private Colleges in the State of Haryana. Further, the instructions dated
18.06.2014 (Annexure P-2) were issued prescribing the manner of
awarding interview marks, stipulating that marks below 5 and above 15
should be awarded only in rare cases where a candidate is found to be
exceptionally good or exceptionally poor and reasons for awarding such
extreme marks must be recorded in the proceedings and signed by all
members of the Selection Committee. He further submits that the
petitioner appeared for the interview on 09.04.2015 and was awarded
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:42

CWP-16758-2015 3
7.6 marks out of 20 in the interview whereas respondent No.5 was
awarded 16 marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner’s publications and seminar certificates were not
considered while casting the merit. He further contends the petitioner
had seven research papers published in refereed international journals
with ISSN numbers and he had attended eight seminars
(National/International). Despite the selection criteria providing for 2
marks per publication (maximum 10) and 3 marks per international
seminar and 2 marks per national seminar (maximum 5), however, the
petitioner was awarded only 2 marks under the head of publications and
3 marks under the head of research. The Selection Committee allegedly
failed to assign any reason for not considering the petitioner's journals
and seminar certificates.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner’s publications were not considered and respondent
No.3/College has failed to provide the details of the publications or the
research papers submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the record
has been burnt down whereas respondent No.5 has been granted more
marks in order to select him. Further, in terms of Annexure P-2, it is
submitted that in case a candidate is given more than 15 marks the
reason for awarding such marks are required to be recorded and the
proceedings duly signed by the members of Selection Committee
whereas respondent No.5 was granted 16 marks.
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:42

CWP-16758-2015 4
4. Per contra , learned Senior counsel for respondent No.5
submits that the papers presented by the petitioner were not in
accordance with the criteria laid down in the advertisement (Annexure
P-1). Only two papers, which were in terms of the said criteria were
considered and corresponding marks were awarded accordingly.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand,
submits that the entire record has been placed on record along with CM-
5447-CWP-2025. He further submits that neither the petitioner was
amongst the selected candidates nor he was in the waiting list. Once he
does not fall within the zone of consideration, the petition is liable to be
dismissed. He further contends that the publications submitted by the
petitioner were not referred in any National/International Journal and
the papers were not presented in a National/International Seminar
sponsored by UGC or the State Government.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
7. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the
Selection Committee acted arbitrarily in awarding marks to the
petitioner under the heads of "Publications" and "Research
Performance" and whether the award of 16 marks in the interview to
respondent No.5 was in violation of the Instructions dated 18.06.2014
(Annexure P-2).
8. It is trite law that the employer is the best judge of the
requirements of a post and the suitability of a candidate. The scope of
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:42

CWP-16758-2015 5
judicial review in matters of selection is limited to checking
arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of statutory rules. The Courts do
not sit as appellate authorities over the decisions of expert Selection
Committees. However, the employer's discretion is not unfettered. It
must be exercised within the four corners of the notified criteria.
9. In the present case, the criteria (Annexure P-1) provides
specific marks for specific academic achievements. The relevant extract
of the criteria under the head "Assessment of Domain Knowledge &
Teaching Skills" is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"(B) Assessment of Domain Knowledge & Teaching Skills
(30 Marks)
I. Publications (Maximum 10 Marks)
Particulars Marks
03 Marks for each
a) Subject Books (ISSN/ISBN)
book
b) Research paper in referred
02 Marks for each
International journal (ISSN/ISBN)
publication
c) Research paper in referred national
01 Mark for each
journal (ISBN/ISSN)
Publication
II. Research Performance (Max. 05 Marks)
Research paper presented in :-
Particulars Marks
a) International seminar sponsored by
03 Marks for each
UGC/State Government
paper
b) National seminar sponsored by
02 Marks for each
UGC/State Government
paper
III. Co-curricular Activities (Max. 05 Marks)
Particulars Marks
a) Youth Festival recommended 01 Mark each
b) Debates / Declaration / Quiz / Poetic 01 Marks for each
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:42

CWP-16758-2015 6
Particulars Marks
recitation / literary & Fine Arts etc.
paper
(State level position)
c) N.C.C. (C. Certificate) / N.C.C. (B.
02 Marks / 01
Certificate)
Mark
d) N.S.S. Certificate (National level) 01 mark
IV. Sports (Max. 05 Marks)
Particulars Marks
1st Position – 5 Marks, 2nd
(a) Position at National level
Position - 3 Marks, 3rd
Position - 2 Marks.
03 Marks for 1st, 02 Marks
(b) Position at inter –
for 2nd and 01 Marks for
University level
3rd Position.
V. Teaching Experience (Max. 5 Marks)
1 Mark for each Academic year, where Academic year at
least 150 days Teaching including both semesters."
10. A perusal of the record reveals that the Selection
Committee, after due deliberation, awarded marks to the candidates
under the various heads. The petitioner's grievance that his publications
and seminars were not considered is not borne out from the record. The
Selection Committee, being an expert body, evaluated the credentials of
the petitioner and found that only a limited number of his publications
and seminars conformed to the criteria laid down in Annexure P-1. The
contention of the petitioner that all his publications ought to have been
counted ignores the specific requirement of the criteria that the research
papers must be published in referred journals and the seminars must be
sponsored by UGC or the State Government. The Selection Committee's
evaluation in this regard, being based on the assessment of an expert
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:42

CWP-16758-2015 7
body, cannot be substituted by this Court unless a clear violation of the
criteria is demonstrated, which the petitioner has failed to establish.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public
Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362 ,
reiterated that it is the employer who is best suited to decide the
requirements of a candidate and the Court should not interfere with the
assessment made by an expert Selection Committee unless the same is
patently arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides. The operative part of the
said judgment, reads as under:-
“ 10. The essential qualifications for appointment to
a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may
prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including
any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best
suited to decide the requirements a candidate must
possess according to the needs of the employer and the
nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions
of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with
regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the
essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the
advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall
outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of
the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court
cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an
ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules
or law the matter has to go back to the appointing
authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in
accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb
of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing
authority to decide what is best for the employer and
interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to
the plain language of the same.”
(emphasis added)
12. The second limb of the petitioner's argument concerns the
interview marks. The Instructions dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-2)
clearly mandate that marks above 15 should be given only in rare cases
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:42

CWP-16758-2015 8
where the candidate is exceptionally good and reasons for the same
must be recorded in the proceedings and signed by all members.
Admittedly, respondent No.5 was awarded 16 marks by the Subject
Expert and 17 marks by other members, resulting in an average of 16.
The record reveals that the Selection Committee, in its proceedings
available at Page No.13 of CM-5447-CWP-2025, has categorically
certified that respondent No.5 "has been awarded the highest marks in
interview because she has fared extremely well in the interview" . This
certification signed by the members of the Selection Committee,
constitutes compliance with the requirement of recording reasons for
awarding marks above the threshold of 15. The subjective satisfaction
of the Selection Committee that respondent No.5 was exceptionally
good, recorded contemporaneously in the proceedings, cannot be
interfered with by this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction, especially when
no mala fides or extraneous considerations are alleged or proved.
13. In view of the foregoing discussions, no ground for
interference is made out. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby
dismissed.
14. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
03.11.2026
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
05.11.2026 17:42