Supreme Court: While deciding the appeal challenging Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision to uphold the selections made by the State of Punjab for the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Government Degree colleges of Punjab, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., quashed the entire recruitment and directed the State to initiate the recruitment process as per the 2018 UGC Regulations which are now in force in the State of Punjab. The Court pointed out that the State miserably failed to justify the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process and to give any valid reason for not adopting the UGC Regulations and avoiding the Public Service Commission in the recruitment in question.
The Court said that quashing of the entire recruitment process may cause hardships for the selected candidates, but at the same time, there is no equity in the favour of selected candidates as challenge to the recruitment was made during the pendency of the process and appointments were subject to the Court orders. A gross illegality like the present recruitment cannot be ignored.
Background:
In January 2021, the State of Punjab had sent separate requisitions dated 15-01-2021 and 29-01-2021 to the Punjab Public Service Commission (Commission), for recruitment of 931 Assistant Professors and 50 Librarians respectively in Government Degree Colleges in the State. Consequent to this the Commission engaged 24 subject experts to prepare the syllabus for the competitive examinations. Later, an additional 160 posts of Assistant Professors and 17 posts for Librarians were created and sanctioned for newly established colleges, and on 15-09-2021, the State’s Department of Higher Education (‘the Department’) sought Commission’s consent to fill these posts through the Departmental Selection Committee rather than the Commission.
The Government by a memorandum dated 17-09-2021 approved the recruitment of 160 and 17 posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians respectively, through Departmental Selection Committees which though had to follow the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’) guidelines or regulations. A change in Government happened on 20-09-2021 after which, the selection process was reviewed in a meeting chaired by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education. In this meeting, the entire process of recruitment was changed, and it was decided that selection would now be made only on the basis of a Written Test, which will be conducted by two separate selection committees of two State Universities. Further, it was decided that all the 1091 posts (931 plus 160 posts) of Assistant Professors and 67 posts (50 plus 17 posts) of Librarians; and not just the posts recently created, are to be filled through these departmental selection committees.
On 18-10-2021, Government issued a memorandum conveying to Director Public Instructions (Colleges) (‘DPI’) the decision for recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians on the basis of two departmental selection committees of two State Universities. On 19-10-2021, advertisements for the above posts were issued. In a little over a month, the exam was conducted and the result was announced on 28-11-2021.
Meanwhile, in the first week of November, Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court, challenging the memorandum dated 18-10-2021 and advertisements dated 19-10-2021. Vide order dated 08-08-2022, the Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the entire recruitment process for being in violation of law inasmuch as the Commission not having been excluded as per procedure prescribed and State having not followed the UGC guidelines and adopting an arbitrary process for the recruitment. However, the Division Bench of the High Court via the impugned order, upheld the recruitment. This verdict eventually led to the filing of the instant appeal.
The appellants have consistently contended that the recruitment process was vitiated on more than one count. Most importantly the recruitment was made in violation of UGC Regulations of 2010 (‘2010 UGC Regulations’) which were adopted by the State of Punjab on 30-07-2013, and which mandated an entirely different criterion and procedure for recruitment. Furthermore, the selection to these posts ought to have been made through the Commission, as admittedly these were the posts within the purview of Commission under Article 320 of the Constitution.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the facts of the case, the Court firstly delved into the importance of Public Service Commission in India both at the Union as well as State level. Further taking note of the recruitment process in question, the Court pointed out that the instant case was a prime example where Commission’s role was eliminated in the recruitment and well considered selection parameters prescribed by an expert body like UGC, were replaced with a simple Multiple- Choice Question type test, which was unheard of where appointments for the posts of Assistant Professor in degree colleges are concerned.
The Court further took note of the scheme of the UGC Regulations. Under Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution, the Parliament had enacted the UGC Act, 1956 setting up an expert body (UGC) for the purposes of the Act. Under provisions of the 1956 Act, UGC frames Regulations from time to time setting qualifications and other standards for teaching and non-teaching staff. Under Section 26(1)(e) and (g), the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 were framed. These Regulations set the minimum eligibility criterion for the appointment to various posts including Assistant Professors and Librarians.
A method of selection to these posts was also provided in the 2010 UGC Regulations which were not followed in the present case. The Court further pointed out that in the present case, the 2010 UGC Regulations were adopted by the State, which stood superseded by the subsequent Regulations of 2018 of UGC which were not adopted by the State till the completion of recruitment process.
The adoption of 2010 UGC Regulations by the State vide order dated 30-07-2013 was an adoption by incorporation and not an adoption by mere reference. This meant that the 2010 UGC Regulations were in force in the State of Punjab despite its repeal by the 2018 Regulations by the UGC. This was clear from the intention and purpose of the order dated 30-07-2013 where it was stated in no uncertain terms that the 2010 Regulations are being adopted with a view to raise the standard of Higher Education in the State, with a specific mention of adoption of Academic Performance Indicator (API) scores.
The Court explained that in case of adoption by incorporation, the subsequent amendment or repeal of the incorporated statute will be of no consequences on the incorporation. The adoption then becomes frozen at the point in time when the incorporation was made. However, the question whether a provision of law is adopted by reference or incorporation also depends upon the language of the order/statute in which such provision is being adopted. It may also depend upon the conduct of the State and how it has been recognised and accepted in that State. 2018 UGC Regulations may have repealed the 2010 UGC Regulations but still they were being considered and recognised in the State of Punjab for all purposes, even after its repeal.
Further taking note of the memorandum dated 17-09-2021, issued by the Council of Ministers, the Court pointed out that officially the 2010 UGC Regulations were in force in the State of Punjab as these were adopted by way of incorporation and not by reference. The repeal of 2010 Regulations by the UGC Regulations of 2018 had no impact insofar as applicability of 2010 Regulations in the State of Punjab was concerned. Also, it has been on record that after the impugned order of the Division Bench, the State adopted the 2018 UGC Regulations.
The Court explained that UGC Regulations made under UGC Act which was enacted by Parliament under Entry 66 of List I of the Schedule VII, whereas State Governments exercise powers under Entry 25 of the List III of the Schedule VII to make laws relating to “education”. Entry 25 of the List III is subject to Entry 66 of List I. Hence, laws, including the subordinate legislations made under Entry 66 of the Union List would prevail over any law made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. Therefore, in the present case the UGC Regulations would be binding particularly when the State of Punjab vide its order dated 30-07-2013 had adopted 2010 UGC Regulations.
Therefore, the Court found that there was total arbitrariness in the present selection. The memo of Council of Ministers dated 17-09-2021 shows that State wanted to recruit only on 160 posts of Assistant Professors and on 17 posts of Librarians through departmental selection committee on an urgent basis as these were for the newly opened colleges. However, even in those cases, the recruitment was to be made by following the UGC Regulations. Next, the 931 and 50 posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians, which were lying vacant and in regard to which requisition had already been sent to Commission, were added and it was decided that the sole basis of the selection would be a single exam. Mere 45-day deadline was set for the commencement and conclusion of the whole recruitment process and ultimately within a span of two months, not only was the recruitment process concluded, but even appointment letters were issued. “One cannot fail to notice the burning haste with which this entire exercise was undertaken by the powers that be”. The intention of the authorities was to conclude the exercise as quickly as possible; which though sought to be justified on grounds of expediency in filling up the posts but undermined the selection by reason of no qualitative assessment of the candidates carried out. The selection process was further impaired by the inclusion of posts already requisitioned to the Commission, which as per the Regulations, were required to be filled up by the Commission and the apparent deviation from the UGC Guidelines which were adopted by the State.
The giving away of a rigorous criteria laid down in the UGC regulations with a single, multiple-choice question based written test, and the complete elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary nature of the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution. The State did not adhere to UGC Regulations and took the posts out of the purview of the Commission without following the procedure prescribed under the law. And this was done suddenly without any valid reason and thus, it would amount to arbitrariness and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
[Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 23141 OF 2024, decided on 14-7-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Senior Advocates Mr. Raju Ramchandran, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. Preetesh Kapur and Mrs. Rekha Palli; Mr. Chritarth Palli, AOR Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Miss Aanchal Jain, AOR Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, AOR
For respondents: Shadan Farasat, A.A.G.; Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G. Senior Advocates Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi and Mr. P.S. Patwali; Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, AOR Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Adv. Mr. Mukul Katyal, Adv. Mr. Amarjeet Singh, AOR Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv. Ms. Nayan Gupta, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
