The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) decision to introduce minimum qualifying marks for interviews for recruitment to Assistant Professor posts in state’s Government Medical Colleges, observing that the recruiting agency could not alter the selection criteria just six days before the interviews.“Being a State-run recruiting agency, the HPSC cannot afford such doubts regarding its credibility as Caesar’s wife must remain above all suspicion,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed while allowing the petitions and directing the HPSC to re-evaluate and finalise the selection process according to the criteria originally notified by the Director General Medical Education and Research (DGMER), Haryana.The DGMER had issued an advertisement on May 31, 2022, for 189 posts of teaching faculty (Assistant Professors) in Super Speciality and Broad Speciality in Government Medical Colleges in Haryana. Under the notified selection scheme, 75 marks were to be awarded under the pre-merit criteria, while 25 marks were earmarked for the interview.The HPSC was entrusted with conducting the interviews. It issued announcements on December 7 and 8, 2022, publishing the list of shortlisted candidates and informing them that interviews would be held on December 19 and 20.However, on December 13, just six days before the interviews were scheduled to begin, the HPSC introduced minimum qualifying marks of 50 per cent for candidates in the general category and 45 per cent for candidates belonging to reserved categories. The petitioners challenged the move, contending that no such qualifying benchmark had been prescribed in the original advertisement or the interview call announcements.Also Read | Special to the Express | HPSC results expose deep cracks in Haryana’s higher education systemThe HC held that the HPSC “has erred in prescribing the minimum qualifying marks for interview, especially after announcing the list of short-listed candidates”.The HC further noted that the selection scheme had been framed by the DGMER, which was not only the employer but also a specialised body entrusted with regulating medical education. The HPSC, the HC said, had merely been engaged to conduct interviews, and there was no material showing that it had been authorised to modify the existing selection criteria.Story continues below this adThe Bench of Justice Brar also rejected the argument that prescribing minimum interview marks was merely fixing a cut-off. “While the weightage of a stage pertains to how much a component counts towards the aggregate, the qualifying threshold answers a different question i.e. whether a candidate can be eliminated from consideration, regardless of aggregate merit,” read the order.The HC further observed that in “setting minimum qualifying marks for the interview, the HPSC has attempted to nullify the effect of the marks obtained in terms of the carefully curated pre-merit criteria.”On the timing of the decision, the Bench observed that while no direct evidence of mala fide had been brought before it, the surrounding circumstances raised concern.Also Read | Haryana can prescribe higher qualifications than UGC: High CourtThe HC also examined the issue from the standpoint of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It said the 75 marks under the pre-merit/academic criteria were not distributed in an unstructured manner but were based on a detailed, multi-dimensional formula devised by DGMER experts. It held that the absence of a written examination did not, by itself, diminish the quality of the recruitment process.Story continues below this adThe HC ultimately quashed the HPSC’s December 13, 2022 announcement and set aside the December 23 result to the extent candidates were excluded for failing to secure the newly prescribed 50 per cent or 45 per cent marks.It directed the HPSC to re-evaluate and finalise the selection on the basis of the original advertisement by calculating aggregate merit out of 100 marks “without applying any minimum qualifying cut-off for the viva voce.”It further directed that candidates found successful on such aggregate evaluation, and otherwise eligible, be issued consequential appointment letters. Salary would be payable from the date of joining, while notional benefits would be calculated from the date such benefits were disbursed to their batch-mates.