'Testing Only Bookish Knowledge In Govt Exams Ignores Skills Needed For Effective Administration': Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court said that recruitment processes for government posts must evolve beyond rote learning and mechanical recall, emphasizing that evaluating only bookish knowledge fails to capture the skills required for effective administration and public service.

The Court held that it is justifiable to ask General awareness, GK, mental ability etc. in the screening test for the post of Assistant Assistant Environmental Engineer exam conducted by Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC).

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The general trend in recruitment to government jobs continues to rely heavily on bookish knowledge. The examinations conducted for this purpose tend to emphasize upon rote learning and the mechanical reiteration of facts rather than assessing critical thinking or practical problem-solving abilities. Such an approach often fails to account for creativity, adaptability, emotional intelligence and other such skills that are essential for effective administration, especially in the context of public service."

It is 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 judgmentthe Court added.

The bench opined that, such selection processes are more likely to appoint well-rounded public servants capable of nuanced application of the knowledge,

General Awareness In Syllabus Not Irrelevant For Multidisciplinary Posts

The Court opined that the integration of general awareness into the selection criterion is concerned, the same cannot be considered irrelevant especially for posts that require interdisciplinary considerations.

"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. Moreover, the very nature of the job demands that the officers are aware of scientific advancements, socio-economic trends and public policy developments to serve the people to the best of their abilities," it said.

The bench concluded that Courts must not to interfere in recruitment process when the advertisement qua the same is clear and within the legal framework. 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.

The petitioner, a civil engineer, had approached the Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the syllabus prescribed for the screening test vide announcement dated 13.08.2025, contending that it excluded core engineering subjects relevant to the post.

It was argued that the test—focused on general science, current affairs, history, polity, economy, reasoning and Haryana-specific GK—bore no rational nexus with the technical duties of an Assistant Environmental Engineer.

The HPSC, however, defended the decision, explaining that over 7,000 applications were received for just 54 posts in the 2023 cycle, which had left more than half the vacancies unfilled. To expedite recruitment and simplify shortlisting, the Commission revised the screening syllabus. Counsel further clarified that only 25% qualifying marks were required in the screening stage, which served merely as a shortlisting mechanism. The marks obtained therein were not to be counted toward the final merit list.

Rejecting the plea, the Court observed that public recruitment exams have long relied on rote learning and mechanical reiteration of facts, thereby neglecting critical thinking, practical reasoning, and emotional intelligence—skills indispensable for effective governance.

Emphasizing that Courts must refrain from substituting their views with that of expert bodies, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019) 6 SCC 362, reiterating that the employer alone is best placed to determine the qualifications and assessment methods for recruitment.

Finding no illegality in the HPSC's decision to include general knowledge in the screening syllabus, the Court dismissed the plea.

Mr. A.S. Nirmaan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2-HPSC.

Ms. Mansi, Advocate for Mr. Sukhdeep S. Parmar, Advocate for respondent No.3-HSPCB.

Title: Amit Ahalawat v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 425

Click here to read order