Estoppel and Allied Subjects in University Faculty Recruitment: Commentary on Seema Sharma v. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 24 November 2025)

I. Introduction

1. Parties and Context

The case of Seema Sharma v. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Another (CWP No. 3257 of 2023, decided on 24.11.2025) was heard by the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla, before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma.

The petitioner, Seema Sharma, is a scholar in the field of forestry-related sciences, holding:

An M.Sc. in Botany, and
A Ph.D. in Forestry, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants.

At the time of the writ petition, she was working as a Guest Faculty in the Department of Forest Products at Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry (respondent no. 1). Respondent no. 2 is a private respondent who had been appointed as Assistant Professor (Forest Products) pursuant to the selection process under challenge.

2. Factual Background in Brief

The essential factual matrix is as follows:

On 9 June 2022, the University issued an advertisement for various teaching positions, including three posts of Assistant Professor, Forest Products (two for General category and one for SC category).
The prescribed qualification for Assistant Professor (Forest Products) required, inter alia:
- A Ph.D. degree in the concerned subject, and
- A consistently good academic record with at least 55% marks at the Master’s level.
Seema Sharma applied, and a Scrutiny Committee constituted under Statute 4.5(i)(b) of the University Statutes found her eligible for the post. She was called for and attended the interview held on 19 September 2022.
The University followed a “Common Score Card” system for assessing candidates, under which 25 marks were earmarked for the M.Sc. degree in the “concerned subject”.
When the result was notified on 11 October 2022, the petitioner’s name was not in the select list. Upon obtaining her score card (through inquiries and RTI), she discovered that:
- Although she had been awarded marks for M.Sc. (Botany) for earlier purposes (e.g., Ph.D. admission and Guest Faculty appointment),
- No marks were awarded to her M.Sc. (Botany) for the Assistant Professor (Forest Products) selection, on the ground that Botany was allegedly not the “concerned subject”.
Meanwhile, the University had also issued a further advertisement dated 12 August 2022 for an additional post of Assistant Professor, Forest Products, which remained unfilled owing to the pendency of this litigation.

The petitioner’s core grievance was that:

Her M.Sc. in Botany had been treated as an allied/concerned subject when:
- She was admitted to the Ph.D. programme in Forestry, Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, and
- She was appointed as Guest Faculty in the Department of Forest Products;
But, for the same subject-area and department, the University refused to grant her marks for M.Sc. (Botany) in the selection for a regular post of Assistant Professor (Forest Products).

3. Issues Before the Court

The central legal question framed by the Court (para 6) was:

“Whether marks, if any, could have been awarded by the Interview Committee to the petitioner for M.Sc. (Botany)?”

This general issue translated into several sub-questions:

Is M.Sc. (Botany) to be treated as a “concerned” or “allied” subject for the post of Assistant Professor (Forest Products), especially when the same degree was accepted for Ph.D. admission in Forestry (Medicinal and Aromatic Plants)?
Can the University adopt different standards in different contexts (Ph.D. admission, Guest Faculty appointment, regular Assistant Professor selection) regarding whether Botany is an allied/concerned subject?
Does the University’s prior conduct give rise to estoppel or a form of legitimate expectation in favour of the candidate?
What is the appropriate relief—reconstitution of the select list, appointment against an existing vacancy, or something else—especially in light of filled posts and vacant sanctioned positions requiring State Government approval under Section 39-A of the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture & Forestry Act, 1986?

II. Summary of the Judgment

1. Core Holding

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that:

Since the University had earlier treated the petitioner’s M.Sc. in Botany as an allied/concerned subject:
- For Ph.D. admission in Forestry, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, and
- For appointment as Guest Faculty in the Department of Forest Products,
it was not open to the University to deny marks for the same degree in the selection for Assistant Professor (Forest Products).
The Court inferred, on this basis, that Botany is a “concerned subject” for the post of Assistant Professor (Forest Products) and that the University is estopped from taking a contrary stand.

2. Directions and Relief Granted

Instead of disturbing the appointments already made pursuant to the 9 June 2022 advertisement, the Court fashioned a balancing remedy:

It noted that out of 16 sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Forest Products, 13 were filled and 3 were vacant (subject to Government approval under Section 39-A).
The Court directed the respondent-University to:
- Consider the petitioner’s candidature against the third post of Assistant Professor (Forest Products),
- By treating M.Sc. (Botany) as a concerned subject and granting her pro rata marks for that qualification in accordance with the common score card.
The Court further clarified that:
- If after awarding these marks, the petitioner’s total score exceeds that of respondent no. 2 (the existing selected candidate),
- She shall not claim seniority over respondent no. 2, and the latter’s appointment shall remain undisturbed.
The University was directed to carry out this exercise and take appropriate steps within four weeks.

The writ petition was thus disposed of, granting substantive relief without unsettling the existing selection, and all pending applications were also disposed of.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Statutory, Regulatory and Procedural Framework

1. University Statutes and Scrutiny Committee

The judgment refers to Statute 4.5(i)(b) under which a Scrutiny Committee was constituted to verify eligibility and scrutinize applications. This procedural step is significant for two reasons:

The Scrutiny Committee found the petitioner eligible, implicitly recognizing that her qualification profile (M.Sc. Botany + Ph.D. Forestry, Medicinal & Aromatic Plants) satisfied the requirement of a Ph.D. in the “concerned subject”.
It shows that no objection was raised at the threshold about Botany being an inappropriate or irrelevant Master’s subject for the Forest Products post.

2. The Common Score Card and “Concerned Subject”

The selection process was governed by a Common Score Card, under which marks were apportioned to various academic and other credentials. The Court notes that:

25 marks were reserved for the M.Sc. in the “concerned subject” (para 12).
However, there was no material before the Court explaining how the term “concerned subject” was defined or to be determined by the interview committee or competent authority (para 12).

This absence of a clear, prior definition of “concerned subject” created discretionary space which, in this case, was exercised in a way that produced inconsistency and arbitrariness. The Court therefore adopted an interpretive approach, using the University’s own conduct as a guide to determining what counts as a “concerned/allied” subject.

3. Section 39-A of the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture & Forestry Act, 1986

The Registrar’s instructions placed before the Court referred to Section 39-A of the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture & Forestry Act, 1986 (Act No. 4 of 1987), which provides:

“No post, position and assignment created by the University shall have any effect unless approved by the State Government.”

From this, the Court drew attention to the fact that:

Out of 16 sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor (Forest Products), 13 were filled and 3 were vacant, but
Filling these posts required State Government approval.

The Court’s direction to consider the petitioner against one vacant post is therefore implicitly subject to compliance with Section 39-A, i.e., the University must seek/obtain requisite approval from the State Government while implementing the order.

B. Precedents and Prior Authorities

1. Absence of Judicial Precedents in the Judgment

The judgment, as reproduced, does not cite any earlier judicial decisions (of the Supreme Court, High Courts, or otherwise). Instead, the Court relies on:

The text of the advertisement and eligibility criteria,
The University’s own actions and records (Ph.D. admission, Guest Faculty appointment, score cards obtained under RTI), and
General legal principles of consistency, non-arbitrariness and estoppel.

2. Doctrinal Resonance with Broader Jurisprudence

Though the Court does not expressly rely on earlier case law, its reasoning is closely aligned with two settled public law doctrines under Indian constitutional jurisprudence:

Non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and
The doctrine of promissory estoppel / legitimate expectation in administrative law.

In similar contexts, the Supreme Court has consistently held that administrative and selection authorities:

Must act fairly, consistently and non-arbitrarily in applying eligibility criteria and selection norms;
Cannot change the rules midstream to the prejudice of candidates; and
May, in appropriate cases, be held to their representations and past conduct, creating a form of legitimate expectation for candidates (see, for example, Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 499, and similar jurisprudence on legitimate expectation).

While these decisions are not cited in the text, the High Court’s reliance on:

The University’s own prior recognition of M.Sc. (Botany) as an allied subject;
Its past use of that qualification both for Ph.D. admission and Guest Faculty appointment; and
Its failure to provide any rational explanation for the sudden non-recognition of that same degree in the Assistant Professor selection,

embodies a textbook application of these constitutional principles.

C. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Determining Whether Botany is a “Concerned/Allied Subject”

The key interpretive move of the Court lies in paras 10–12 of the judgment.

First, the Court notes that:

For admission to the Ph.D. course in Forestry, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, the University’s advertised eligibility criteria required:
“M.Sc Degree in the concerned/allied discipline with research thesis.”
The University had treated the petitioner’s M.Sc. (Botany) as an allied discipline for this purpose and admitted her to the Ph.D. programme, which she successfully completed.

From this, the Court reasons (paras 10–12):

If Botany was considered an allied/concerned subject for Ph.D. admission in Forestry (Medicinal and Aromatic Plants),
And if the Ph.D. in that discipline is an essential qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Forest Products),
Then it is logically inconsistent and legally untenable to deny recognition to the same M.Sc. (Botany) degree as a “concerned subject” when awarding marks for the Assistant Professor selection.

Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that:

The University itself had, at an earlier stage, awarded marks for M.Sc. (Botany) when appointing the petitioner as Guest Faculty in the same department (Forest Products).
There was no change in the nature of the discipline, the subject-area, or the petitioner’s qualifications; the only change was the University’s posture in the context of a regular selection.

In para 12, the Court points out that:

The advertisement mentioned 25 marks for M.Sc. in the “concerned subject”,
But there was no defined or transparent standard for determining what that “concerned subject” is,
Thus, the Court took a “cue from the fact” that M.Sc. (Botany) was earlier accepted for Ph.D. and concluded that Botany must be treated as a concerned subject for the Forest Products post as well.

2. Estoppel and Consistency in Institutional Conduct

A critical doctrinal underpinning is articulated in para 12:

“Otherwise also, respondents are estopped from adopting different yardstick while considering M.Sc. (Botany) as 'concerned' subject for Ph.D. and ignoring the same, for the post of Assistant Professor (Forest Products)….”

The principle is:

Once an institution has unequivocally treated a particular qualification (here, M.Sc. Botany) as an allied/concerned subject for:
- Entry into a specific academic stream (Ph.D. Forestry, Medicinal & Aromatic Plants), and
- Appointment in the corresponding department (Guest Faculty, Forest Products),
It is estopped from subsequently denying that status to the same qualification in a selection process for a regular faculty position closely tied to the same specialization.

The use of “estopped” here reflects:

A form of promissory / representation-based estoppel: the University’s prior recognition and actions created a legitimate expectation in the petitioner that her M.Sc. Botany would continue to be treated as an allied/concerned subject in related career progression steps.
A broader requirement of administrative consistency: similarly situated candidates and similar qualifications must be treated in a reasonably coherent and stable manner by public institutions.

3. Non-arbitrariness and Fairness in Academic Selections

The Court frames the University’s conduct as arbitrary and unfair, though it does not explicitly invoke Article 14. The arbitrariness manifests in:

Applying the same Common Score Card to Guest Faculty and Assistant Professor appointments, but treating the same qualification differently in the two processes;
Offering no rational justification for why Botany suddenly ceased to be a “concerned subject” at the stage of regular recruitment;
Failing to set out or publicize any clear definition or criteria of what constitutes a “concerned subject”.

By insisting that the University must:

Adhere to its own previously adopted standards, and
Apply them consistently and non-discriminatorily,

the Court effectively vindicates the constitutional guarantee of equality and fairness in public employment and academic selections.

4. The Role of Documentary Evidence and RTI

The Court specifically notes (para 13) that:

The petitioner obtained certain documents under the RTI Act, including score cards and records of earlier selections, which showed that:
- The same Common Score Card was applied for Guest Faculty appointments, and
- No objection was ever raised about the petitioner’s M.Sc. Botany at that time.

These documents were crucial in:

Demonstrating the University’s past recognition of Botany as a relevant subject;
Exposing the inconsistent, selective application of criteria in the current recruitment; and
Undermining the credibility of the University’s defence that Botany is not an allied/concerned subject for the Forest Products post.

5. Judicial Deference vs. Correcting Arbitrariness

In academic and selection matters, courts generally show deference to expert bodies and avoid micromanaging academic policy or evaluation criteria. However, that deference is not unlimited.

Here, the Court does not:

Interfere with the composition of the Selection Committee;
Re-evaluate the merit of candidates on academic grounds; or
Order a wholesale re-running of the selection process.

Instead, it:

Corrects a clear instance of arbitrariness and inconsistency, and
Confines the direction to awarding the marks that were wrongly withheld and considering the petitioner against a vacant post.

This approach exemplifies the proper boundary of judicial review in academic matters: courts intervene not to substitute their academic judgment, but to ensure that procedural fairness and constitutional norms are respected.

6. The Remedial Structure: Balancing Rights and Finality

The remedial design adopted by the Court is particularly noteworthy:

The Court acknowledges (para 14) that:
- Two posts advertised on 9.6.2022 have already been filled;
- An additional post advertised on 12.8.2022 remains unfilled due to the pendency of the present petition; and
- Overall, there are three vacant posts (subject to Section 39-A).
The Court consciously chooses not to disturb the appointment of the private respondent (respondent no. 2), who is already working as Assistant Professor (Forest Products). This reflects:
- Respect for the finality and stability of completed selections; and
- Fairness to a third party who was not at fault and had relied on the legitimacy of the University’s process.
Instead, the Court directs that:
- The petitioner be considered against a vacant sanctioned post of Assistant Professor (Forest Products), with her M.Sc. Botany being treated as a concerned subject and marks awarded pro rata (para 17);
- Even if her total marks surpass those of respondent no. 2 after such correction, she cannot claim seniority over the already appointed candidate (para 17).

This structure:

Grants the petitioner substantive relief by opening a lawful path to appointment;
Preserves the legitimate interests of the existing appointee;
Respects the University’s sanctioned cadre limits and the requirement of State approval; and
Avoids a disruptive, retroactive reconfiguration of the existing merit list.

IV. Doctrinal Significance and Likely Impact

1. Clarifying the Treatment of “Allied” and “Concerned” Subjects

The judgment establishes a practical and important principle for academic recruitment:

Once a university has treated a Master’s degree in a particular subject as an “allied/concerned” discipline for Ph.D. admission and related teaching engagements in a given field, it cannot subsequently deny that status to the same degree when considering the candidate for a regular faculty post in that very field.

In other words:

Universities must maintain internal consistency in how they classify and treat academic disciplines as “concerned” or “allied” across admissions, temporary appointments, and regular faculty recruitment.
Where their own past actions and criteria clearly indicate that a subject is allied/concerned, they may be judicially estopped from taking a contrary position to the detriment of a candidate.

2. Implications for University Recruitment Practices

For universities, particularly in specialized sectors such as agriculture, horticulture, forestry, medicine, etc., this case underscores:

The need to:
- Define clearly what is meant by “concerned subject” and “allied subject” in their advertisements and recruitment rules;
- Ensure that these definitions are:
  - Published in advance,
  - Reasonably related to the functional requirements of the post, and
  - Applied uniformly across candidates and across recruitment cycles.
The risk that arbitrary or selective reclassification of subjects can invite judicial correction, especially when:
- Pervasive inconsistency is proved through documents and RTI-derived records;
- Previous acceptance of a subject is clearly on record.

3. Strengthening Legitimate Expectation in Academic Careers

From the candidate’s perspective, the decision strengthens the idea that:

If a university:
- Admits a candidate to a specialized Ph.D. programme on the basis of a particular M.Sc.; and
- Employs the candidate as Guest Faculty in the same area on the strength of that qualification,
Then the candidate can legitimately expect that the same M.Sc. will not be arbitrarily devalued or ignored when she applies for a regular faculty position in the same specialization.

This fosters faith in:

The transparency of academic career pathways;
The integrity of institutional assessment of qualifications; and
The predictability of academic mobility within specialized disciplines.

4. Impact on the Use of Score Cards and Structured Marking Schemes

The judgment indirectly highlights a key vulnerability in structured score card regimes:

While score cards promote objectivity and comparability,
They can be misused if crucial categories like “concerned subject” are:
- Left undefined, or
- Defined in ad hoc, undisclosed ways.

Thus, institutions should:

Articulate, in advance, which Master’s disciplines qualify as concerned/allied for each advertised post;
Ensure that selection committees do not deviate from these declared standards; and
Maintain and disclose consistent records to avoid allegations of mala fide or arbitrariness.

5. Practical Effect on Future Litigation and Administrative Law

Within Himachal Pradesh (and potentially persuasive for other High Courts), the case provides:

A clear instance of a court:
- Accepting admissions/eligibility decisions as evidence of how a university understands “allied subject”, and
- Using that understanding to control later recruitment decisions in related domains.

It can be invoked in future cases where:

Candidates allege inconsistent treatment of degrees across different selection/appointment processes within the same institution; or
Institutions attempt to retroactively narrow eligibility without clear statutory backing or transparent justification.

V. Simplifying Key Legal and Technical Concepts

1. “Concerned Subject” and “Allied Discipline”

In university recruitment and admissions:

Concerned subject usually means the core discipline in which the post exists (e.g., Forestry, Forest Products, Botany, Plant Pathology, etc.).
Allied discipline refers to a closely related subject whose content and methodology are sufficiently overlapping with the core discipline, so that a person trained in it can effectively teach or research in the concerned field.

In this case:

Forest Products is a specialization under Forestry.
Botany (the study of plants) is clearly related to forestry and forest products (which often involve plant-based raw materials, physiology, and utilisation).
The University’s own conduct (accepting M.Sc. Botany for Ph.D. in Forestry, Medicinal & Aromatic Plants, and for Guest Faculty in Forest Products) confirms that it had been treating Botany as an allied/concerned subject for these purposes.

2. “Common Score Card” and “Pro Rata Marks”

A Common Score Card is a structured format followed by selection committees to:

Assign marks for:
- Academic qualifications (B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D., etc.),
- Publications, research projects, teaching experience,
- Interview performance, and other criteria.
Ensure that:
- All candidates are evaluated on comparable parameters, and
- Subjective biases are minimized.

In this case:

The score card allotted 25 marks for M.Sc. in the concerned subject.
The Court’s direction to award marks on a pro rata basis means that:
- The marks awarded must be calculated in proportion to the petitioner’s actual performance (e.g., percentage or grade) in her M.Sc. degree,
- In the same manner as for other candidates, avoiding any arbitrary reduction or differential treatment.

3. Doctrine of Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation (Simplified)

In public law, especially administrative law:

Estoppel means that:
- If a public authority has led someone to believe something (by words, conduct, or policy) and that person has relied on it to their detriment,
- The authority may be prevented (estopped) from going back on that representation in a way that would harm that person, unless overriding public interest demands otherwise.
Legitimate expectation arises when:
- The consistent past practice or express promises of an authority give someone a reasonable expectation of being treated in a certain way,
- And any sudden, unexplained departure from that practice can be challenged as unfair or arbitrary.

Here:

The University had, over time, consistently treated M.Sc. Botany as an allied/concerned subject for:
- Ph.D. admission; and
- Guest Faculty appointment in Forest Products.
The petitioner structured her career (by doing that Ph.D., working in that department) on the basis of this institutional stance.
The University’s later refusal to award marks for M.Sc. Botany in the Assistant Professor selection contradicted its earlier position and betrayed the legitimate expectation it had created.
The Court therefore held that the University was estopped from adopting a different yardstick at this later stage.

4. Judicial Review in Academic Selections

Courts generally avoid:

Deciding which subject is “better” academically, or
Re-marking or re-evaluating answer sheets or interviews.

However, courts will intervene when:

There is clear illegality (e.g., ignoring prescribed qualifications);
There is arbitrariness (e.g., applying one criterion to some candidates and another to others without justification); or
Authorities act in bad faith or for extraneous reasons.

In this case, the Court intervened not to assess scientific or academic merit, but to:

Correct an unjustified inconsistency in the way the University applied its own rules and past practice; and
Ensure that the petitioner was evaluated on the same legitimate criteria that had been applied to her in the past and presumably to other candidates.

5. Seniority and Non-disturbance of Completed Selections

The Court’s clarification that the petitioner:

May be appointed against a vacant post, but
Shall not claim seniority over respondent no. 2 even if her corrected score is higher,

serves several legal and practical purposes:

It protects the stability of existing appointments; a person already appointed should not be unfairly pushed down the seniority ladder due to retrospective corrections.
It reduces the risk of additional litigation over inter se seniority between the petitioner and the existing Assistant Professor.
It effectively treats the petitioner’s appointment (if made) as prospective, acknowledging that though her rights were infringed, the remedy cannot fully undo the passage of time.

6. Requirement of Government Approval Under Section 39-A

Section 39-A of the 1986 Act mandates that:

No post, position or assignment created by a University has legal effect unless approved by the State Government.

While the Court directs the University to consider the petitioner against a third post of Assistant Professor (Forest Products), the Registrar’s instructions (para 15) make it clear that:

Filling this post is contingent upon State Government approval.

Thus, the practical implementation of the Court’s order requires:

That the University seek and obtain necessary approval under Section 39-A for filling the vacant post;
Upon such approval, the University must allocate pro rata marks to the petitioner’s M.Sc. Botany and complete the selection formalities in accordance with the judgment.

VI. Conclusion: Key Takeaways and Broader Significance

The decision in Seema Sharma v. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry is notable for several interlinked reasons.

Consistency in Academic Standards:
The Court firmly holds that a university cannot oscillate in its classification of a degree as “allied/concerned” based on convenience. Once M.Sc. (Botany) was accepted as an allied discipline for Ph.D. admission in Forestry (Medicinal & Aromatic Plants) and for Guest Faculty appointment in Forest Products, it must be treated as such for related regular faculty recruitment as well.
Estoppel Against Arbitrary Shifts:
The judgment applies the doctrine of estoppel and legitimate expectation to academic recruitment, emphasizing that universities are bound by their own previous representations and practice, particularly when candidates have structured their careers in reliance on them.
Protection of Candidates’ Rights Without Destabilizing Institutions:
The Court’s remedial strategy—directing consideration against an existing vacancy and preserving the seniority of the already appointed candidate—strikes a careful balance between:
- Correcting injustice to the petitioner, and
- Maintaining the stability and continuity of academic appointments.
Guidance for Future Recruitment Processes:
Universities are implicitly advised to:
- Define “concerned” and “allied” subjects in a clear, published manner;
- Apply these definitions uniformly across all related academic and recruitment processes; and
- Ensure that their score card systems are used transparently and consistently.
Reinforcement of Non-arbitrariness Under Article 14:
Though largely implicit, the reasoning reinforces the constitutional mandate that public institutions, including universities, must act in a fair, non-discriminatory, and rational manner in all recruitment decisions. Hidden or shifting criteria, selectively applied, will not withstand judicial scrutiny.

In the broader legal context, this judgment contributes to the evolving body of Indian law on academic governance, public employment, and administrative fairness. It sends a clear message: academic autonomy does not include the freedom to act arbitrarily or inconsistently with one’s own established standards, especially when such conduct affects the career prospects of individual candidates who have legitimately relied on institutional representations.

Estoppel and Allied Subjects in University Faculty Recruitment: Commentary on Seema Sharma v. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry (HP HC, 24 Nov 2025)