Introduction:

In Seema Sharma v. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry & Anr., CWP No. 3257 of 2023, decided on 24.11.2025, the Himachal Pradesh High Court addressed a vital issue concerning fairness, consistency, and transparency in academic recruitment. The petitioner, Seema Sharma, who had previously worked as Guest Faculty in the Department of Forest Products, approached the Court challenging the University’s arbitrary and inconsistent approach in evaluating her academic qualifications. She asserted that while her M.Sc. (Botany) degree had been fully recognised as a relevant subject during her Ph.D. admission process and also for awarding marks during her engagement as Guest Faculty, the same University shockingly refused to acknowledge the same degree as relevant when she applied for the post of Assistant Professor in 2022. The recruitment advertisement required a Ph.D. in the concerned subject with a good academic record. The petitioner contended that she fulfilled all eligibility requirements and that the University’s arbitrary refusal to grant marks for her Master’s degree resulted in her wrongful exclusion from the merit list. Justice Sandeep Sharma of the Himachal Pradesh High Court examined whether a University could legally apply different standards at different stages in relation to the same qualification. The Court emphatically held that such inconsistent practices were impermissible and that the University was “estopped from adopting different yardsticks” regarding the recognition of M.Sc. (Botany) as the ‘concerned subject.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, argued that the University’s conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of fairness and legitimate expectation. She contended that during her Ph.D. admission process, the University had not only accepted her M.Sc. (Botany) as a relevant subject but also granted her marks on that basis. Moreover, during her appointment as Guest Faculty, the same degree had been duly recognised, and she had been engaged in the Department of Forest Products without any objection regarding her academic qualifications. The petitioner argued that once the University had acknowledged Botany as a relevant and concerned subject for Ph.D. purposes, it could not subsequently deny the same recognition during the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor. She submitted that such an inconsistent attitude violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and amounted to unfair labour and recruitment practices. She further contended that the recruitment advertisement required a Ph.D. in the “concerned subject,” and since she had been admitted to the Ph.D. programme after her Master’s in Botany was deemed eligible, the University was estopped from denying the same eligibility at the time of faculty selection. She argued that the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation squarely applied. The petitioner also contended that the University’s attempt to categorise Botany as a non-allied subject lacked any academic or regulatory justification, particularly when Botany forms a foundational subject for multiple interdisciplinary fields including forestry, ecology, forest products, and environmental sciences.

Arguments of the Respondents (University Authorities):

The respondents, represented by Advocate Mr. Ramesh Sharma for Respondent No.1 and Senior Advocate Mr. Dilip Sharma with Mr. Manish Sharma for Respondent No.2, defended the University’s position by asserting that the recruitment rules required allocation of marks strictly for the Master’s degree in the concerned subject. They argued that Botany was not the “concerned subject” for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Forest Products. According to them, the concerned subject for the advertised post was specialised and aligned with forestry-based disciplines, whereas Botany was a broader and independent discipline. They contended that while the petitioner may have been accepted for the Ph.D. programme earlier, such acceptance did not create an automatic right to be considered in the same manner for faculty recruitment. The University argued that selection criteria for faculty positions were more rigid and required strict adherence to the exact relevant subject, and therefore could not be equated with criteria for admission into a Ph.D. programme. The respondents further contended that the recognition of Botany at the Ph.D. stage did not bind the University to treat it as relevant for recruitment purposes, as the context, purpose, and academic requirements differed. They maintained that the petitioner’s exclusion was in accordance with merit-based filtering and justified under the recruitment rules.

Court’s Judgment:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court decisively rejected the University’s arguments and ruled in favour of the petitioner. Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that the University’s inconsistent treatment of the petitioner’s Master’s degree was arbitrary, discriminatory, and legally untenable. The Court highlighted that the University had already recognised M.Sc. (Botany) as a relevant and concerned subject during the petitioner’s Ph.D. admission and while awarding marks for her engagement as Guest Faculty. Therefore, the University could not later deny that same recognition for the purpose of selection for Assistant Professor. The Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation applied in full force, as the petitioner had legitimately relied on the University’s previous recognition of her qualifications. Furthermore, the Court emphasised that academic institutions must maintain consistency and fairness in their standards and cannot apply shifting or contradictory interpretations of the same qualification to suit their selective purposes. Justice Sharma remarked that the respondents were “estopped from adopting different yardsticks while considering M.Sc. (Botany) as ‘concerned’ subject for Ph.D. and ignoring the same for the post of Assistant Professor.” The Court held that once Botany was acknowledged as the concerned subject in the context of Ph.D. admission, the University could not arbitrarily deny the same recognition at the recruitment stage without sufficient academic justification, which was wholly absent. The Court further held that the University’s stand that Botany was not an allied subject was contradicted by its own earlier actions and records, including its admission process and Guest Faculty evaluation. The University’s actions were deemed violative of Articles 14 and 16 for being arbitrary and lacking rational nexus. Accordingly, the High Court ordered the University to reconsider the petitioner’s candidature by awarding her the marks she was wrongfully denied. The Court issued directions to reconstruct the merit list and, if the petitioner was found more meritorious, to appoint her as Assistant Professor in accordance with law.