On December 26, 2025, the Delhi High Court read down a UGC regulation clause that could permit a wholly unstructured, unguided, and exclusively interview-based selection process for assistant professors. The court's framing was precise: the clause was not struck down as unconstitutional per se, but it cannot be applied to sustain a 100% interview-only selection without objective safeguards. The judgment also held that a seat reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) cannot be converted into a post reserved for PwBD candidates from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), reinforcing that reservation architecture is not a managerial convenience. Unlike generic "merit vs quota" debates, this was a procedural fairness ruling: it interrogated how discretion is exercised when careers depend on opaque panels.
The emotional truth is familiar to anyone who has ever sat outside an interview room: when selection becomes pure discretion, the candidate experiences it as fate, not evaluation. And when people believe the process is rigged, they do not just blame the institution - they internalize humiliation: "Maybe I was never enough." For employees inside organizations, this translates into cynicism about promotions, internal mobility, and performance appraisals. Managers often underestimate how much trust is destroyed by panels that cannot explain decisions beyond vibes. A fair process is not just for candidates - it is culture engineering. Every opaque interview-only decision teaches the workforce that power is unreviewable.
For HR and compliance leaders, the lesson is brutally transferable outside academia. Interview-only hiring is the cousin of unstructured promotion, unscored performance calibration, and manager-led "fit" decisions that later become discrimination claims. The fix is not more paperwork - it is defensible structure: role-based rubrics, objective shortlisting criteria, documented scoring, panel training, conflict-of-interest declarations, and an appeal or review mechanism for procedural errors. If disability reservation is in play, the judgment's logic warns against creative conversions that dilute entitlements. Think like an auditor: can you reconstruct why a candidate was selected or rejected, and would that reconstruction survive scrutiny? In 2026, "we liked the candidate" is not a reason - it is a liability.
If an interview-only process is legally risky, what is the minimum structure that still feels human - rubrics, work samples, written reasons, or independent observers?
What safeguards would you add to prevent biased discretion in hiring and promotions - scoring transparency, panel diversity rules, COI disclosures, or periodic adverse impact audits?
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
7The emotional truth is familiar to anyone who has ever sat outside an interview room: when selection becomes pure discretion, the candidate experiences it as fate, not evaluation. And when people believe the process is rigged, they do not just blame the institution - they internalize humiliation: "Maybe I was never enough." For employees inside organizations, this translates into cynicism about promotions, internal mobility, and performance appraisals. Managers often underestimate how much trust is destroyed by panels that cannot explain decisions beyond vibes. A fair process is not just for candidates - it is culture engineering. Every opaque interview-only decision teaches the workforce that power is unreviewable.
For HR and compliance leaders, the lesson is brutally transferable outside academia. Interview-only hiring is the cousin of unstructured promotion, unscored performance calibration, and manager-led "fit" decisions that later become discrimination claims. The fix is not more paperwork - it is defensible structure: role-based rubrics, objective shortlisting criteria, documented scoring, panel training, conflict-of-interest declarations, and an appeal or review mechanism for procedural errors. If disability reservation is in play, the judgment's logic warns against creative conversions that dilute entitlements. Think like an auditor: can you reconstruct why a candidate was selected or rejected, and would that reconstruction survive scrutiny? In 2026, "we liked the candidate" is not a reason - it is a liability.
If an interview-only process is legally risky, what is the minimum structure that still feels human - rubrics, work samples, written reasons, or independent observers?
What safeguards would you add to prevent biased discretion in hiring and promotions - scoring transparency, panel diversity rules, COI disclosures, or periodic adverse impact audits?
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Delhi High Court's ruling on the "interview-only" selection process highlights the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in hiring and promotions. This has significant implications for HR and compliance leaders, who must ensure that their selection processes are not only legally compliant but also perceived as fair by candidates and employees.
Firstly, the core issue is the potential for bias and unfairness in an unstructured, interview-only selection process. This can lead to a lack of trust in the organization and feelings of humiliation and cynicism among candidates and employees. It can also result in legal liabilities, especially if the process leads to discrimination claims.
From a legal and compliance perspective, the court's ruling emphasizes the need for objective safeguards in the selection process. These can include role-based rubrics, objective shortlisting criteria, documented scoring, panel training, conflict-of-interest declarations, and an appeal or review mechanism for procedural errors. If disability reservation is involved, the judgment warns against conversions that dilute entitlements.
To create a minimum structure that still feels human, HR and compliance leaders could consider the following steps:
1. Develop role-based rubrics: These provide a structured framework for evaluating candidates based on the specific requirements of the role.
2. Use objective shortlisting criteria: This ensures that candidates are selected for interview based on their qualifications and experience, not subjective factors.
3. Document scoring: This provides a record of how decisions were made, which can be reviewed if necessary.
4. Train panels: This ensures that those involved in the selection process understand their responsibilities and the importance of fairness and transparency.
5. Implement conflict-of-interest declarations: This helps to prevent bias and ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the organization.
6. Provide an appeal or review mechanism: This gives candidates a way to challenge decisions if they believe they were unfair.
In addition to these steps, HR and compliance leaders could also consider implementing scoring transparency, panel diversity rules, COI disclosures, and periodic adverse impact audits to further prevent biased discretion in hiring and promotions.
Remember, in 2026, "we liked the candidate" is not a valid reason for selection - it's a potential liability. Always ensure that your selection decisions can withstand scrutiny and are based on objective, defensible criteria.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Firstly, the core issue is the potential for bias and unfairness in an unstructured, interview-only selection process. This can lead to a lack of trust in the organization and feelings of humiliation and cynicism among candidates and employees. It can also result in legal liabilities, especially if the process leads to discrimination claims.
From a legal and compliance perspective, the court's ruling emphasizes the need for objective safeguards in the selection process. These can include role-based rubrics, objective shortlisting criteria, documented scoring, panel training, conflict-of-interest declarations, and an appeal or review mechanism for procedural errors. If disability reservation is involved, the judgment warns against conversions that dilute entitlements.
To create a minimum structure that still feels human, HR and compliance leaders could consider the following steps:
1. Develop role-based rubrics: These provide a structured framework for evaluating candidates based on the specific requirements of the role.
2. Use objective shortlisting criteria: This ensures that candidates are selected for interview based on their qualifications and experience, not subjective factors.
3. Document scoring: This provides a record of how decisions were made, which can be reviewed if necessary.
4. Train panels: This ensures that those involved in the selection process understand their responsibilities and the importance of fairness and transparency.
5. Implement conflict-of-interest declarations: This helps to prevent bias and ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the organization.
6. Provide an appeal or review mechanism: This gives candidates a way to challenge decisions if they believe they were unfair.
In addition to these steps, HR and compliance leaders could also consider implementing scoring transparency, panel diversity rules, COI disclosures, and periodic adverse impact audits to further prevent biased discretion in hiring and promotions.
Remember, in 2026, "we liked the candidate" is not a valid reason for selection - it's a potential liability. Always ensure that your selection decisions can withstand scrutiny and are based on objective, defensible criteria.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.