Look beyond rote learning in public service recruitment: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Flagging the limitations of rote-based recruitment practices, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that government job examination should evolve beyond “bookish knowledge and mechanical reiteration of facts” to assess creativity, adaptability, emotional intelligence and situational judgment — attributes it described as essential for effective public administration.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the high court asserted that it was “certainly a welcome step when the authorities responsible for recruitment look beyond the traditional norms and adopt a process that attempts to gauge a candidate’s overall intelligence quotient and situational judgment”. Such an approach, the court held, was more likely to ensure the appointment of “well-rounded public servants capable of nuanced application of knowledge”.

The observations came as the court upheld the decision of the authority concerned to include a general knowledge-based screening test in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer in Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB).

Terming the integration of general awareness into the selection process as both logical and necessary, Justice Brar asserted that “the same cannot be considered irrelevant especially for posts that require interdisciplinary considerations”.

The court asserted: “It is entirely justifiable to expect future public servants to have cognitive alertness, practical decision making capacity with a constitutional sensibility and a sense of civic awareness.”

The bench underlined that public service demanded awareness of “scientific advancements, socio-economic trends and public policy developments”, holding that such understanding was vital “to serve the people to the best of their abilities”.

The court added general knowledge examinations “go beyond testing memory and delve into the field of analytical comprehension ensuring that the candidate can identify issues, connect diverse subjects, predict consequences and make informed decisions”.

Rejecting the plea that the new syllabus unfairly excluded engineering subjects, the court maintained that “a candidate does not have a vested right to be subjected to the exact same standards of the last recruitment cycle”, cautioning that allowing candidates to influence examination patterns “would have an unwarranted contagion effect, much to the detriment of all stakeholders”.

Reiterating judicial restraint in such matters, the court noted that “it is the prerogative of the employer to lay down an eligibility criterion as it alone can best judge suitability of a candidate for the advertised role”.

Holding that the screening criteria aimed at selecting “all-rounded candidates” could not be said to violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution, the court dismissed the petition challenging the recruitment process.