1. Recruitment of Assistant Professors and Librarians — Bypassing Public Service Commission and UGC Regulations — Challenge to the validity of the selection process. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1052
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Mandeep Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 9471 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 23141 of 2024] with Civil Appeal No(s). 9472 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 23324 of 2024] and Civil Appeal No(s). 9473 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 907 of 2025]
Decided On : 14-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chritarth Palli , AOR Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Miss Aanchal Jain, AOR Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shadan Farasat, A.A.G. Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G. 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.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chritarth Palli , AOR Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Miss Aanchal Jain, AOR Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shadan Farasat, A.A.G. Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G. 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.
The recruitment process for educational posts must adhere to statutory guidelines and involve necessary bodies to ensure fairness, accountability, and non-arbitrariness as mandated under Article 320(3) of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 320(3) - UGC Regulations of 2010 - Recruitment process for Assistant Professors and Librarians challenged for violating regulations and excluding Public Service Commission - Court found arbitrary conduct of State in altering recruitment process and failing to consult Commission, quashing entire process. (Paras 4, 48, 60)
(B) Administrative Law - Arbitrariness - Role of Public Service Commission must be upheld to ensure fairness and transparency in public recruitment, deviation based on political expediency not justified. (Paras 10, 56, 59)
(C) Education Law - Standards in higher education upheld as per UGC regulations, any recruitment contrary to these must adhere to prescribed methods and regulations. (Paras 36, 47)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the Division Bench's decision that upheld the Punjab Government’s recruitment process for 1,091 Assistant Professors and Librarians, which excluded the Public Service Commission, leading to arbitrary selections in light of upcoming elections.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the recruitment process arbitrary, dismissing the State's argument against the mandatory nature of Article 320(3) and emphasizing UGC regulations should have been followed.
Issues: The Court addressed whether the recruitment process violated Article 320(3) and UGC regulation adherence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the unconsulted exclusion of the Commission and arbitrary procedural changes undermined legitimate expectations for fair recruitment practices mandated under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Result: Appeals allowed; entire recruitment process quashed and directed recruitment as per UGC regulations.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and findings are as follows:
-
The recruitment process for educational posts must adhere to statutory guidelines, particularly those mandated under Article 320(3) of the Constitution, which requires consultation with the Public Service Commission in matters related to methods of recruitment (!) (!) .
-
The regulation and standardization of recruitment procedures in higher education are governed by the UGC Regulations, which are binding on the State when adopted by incorporation, as was done in this case (!) (!) (!) .
-
Any deviation from the prescribed procedures, especially bypassing the Public Service Commission without following the proper process for exclusion under existing regulations, renders the recruitment process arbitrary and unlawful (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The process was characterized by a sudden and hurried change in recruitment methodology, replacing merit-based assessments with a simple objective written test, which undermines fairness and transparency (!) (!) .
-
The retrospective amendment of regulations after the completion of recruitment procedures does not validate the process, especially when such amendments are made to justify bypassing statutory procedures (!) .
-
Decisions taken in haste, without following established procedures or providing valid reasons, are presumed to be arbitrary and violate principles of fairness and reasonableness enshrined in constitutional law (!) (!) (!) .
-
The State's departure from the standard recruitment procedures, especially without proper consultation and in the absence of valid reasons, amounts to arbitrariness and is not sustainable under the principles of equality and fairness (!) (!) .
-
The importance of following the prescribed legal and regulatory framework is emphasized, and any violation warrants the quashing of the entire recruitment process to uphold the rule of law and integrity of public employment procedures (!) .
-
Although the quashing of the entire recruitment process might cause hardships for the selected candidates, the illegality and procedural violations in the process take precedence, and the Court's role is to ensure adherence to lawful procedures (!) .
-
The Court directs the State to initiate the recruitment process afresh, strictly in accordance with the 2018 UGC Regulations, which are now recognized as applicable in the State of Punjab (!) .
This summary underscores the necessity of compliance with constitutional mandates, statutory regulations, and established procedural norms in public service recruitment, particularly in higher education, to maintain fairness, transparency, and accountability.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend recruitment violated UGC Regulations and Article 320; Respondents argue Article 320(3) is directory and State possesses discretion in recruitment methods. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The recruitment process was arbitrary, conducted in undue haste, and bypassed mandatory procedures for excluding posts from the Public Service Commission's purview. (Para 26 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 )
4. State actions must be non-arbitrary and follow prescribed procedures; bypassing constitutional bodies and statutory expert regulations without due process violates Article 14. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 )
5. Appeals allowed — Division Bench order set aside — Recruitment process quashed — State directed to initiate fresh recruitment per 2018 UGC Regulations. (Para 61 )
6. Is consultation with the Public Service Commission under Article 320(3) of the Constitution mandatory?
While generally directory, once regulations are framed under the proviso to Article 320(3) to exclude certain posts, those regulations must be followed in letter and spirit. Bypassing the Commission without following the prescribed exclusion procedure is arbitrary. (Para 18 , 23 , 24 , 26 )
7. Are UGC Regulations binding on State Governments?
Yes, especially when adopted by the State. UGC Regulations, as subordinate legislation under the UGC Act (Entry 66, Union List), prevail over State legislation (Entry 25, Concurrent List) via the doctrine of repugnancy. (Para 33 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
8. What is the legal distinction between adoption by incorporation and adoption by reference?
Adoption by incorporation means a provision is bodily lifted into the new statute; subsequent amendments to the original statute do not affect the incorporated version. Adoption by reference means the current version of the referred statute always applies. (Para 37 , 38 )
9. How does the court view State actions conducted in undue haste?
State actions undertaken in a post-haste manner are presumed to be mala fide and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, as they lack transparency, predictability, and sound principles. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 )
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2.The appellants before this Court have challenged the judgment dated 23.09.2024, of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court which has reversed the findings of the learned Single Judge and has thereby upheld the selections made by the State of Punjab for the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Government Degree colleges of Punjab.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
a. In January 2021, the State of Punjab had sent separate requisitions to the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commission’), for recruitment of 931 Assistant Professors (dated 15.01.2021) and 50 Librarians (dated 29.01.2021), in Government Degree Colleges in the State. Consequent to this and based on correspondences exchanged, the Commission engaged 24 subject experts to prepare the syllabus for the competitive examinations and honorarium was paid to them.
b. 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Department’) sought Commission’s consent to fill these posts through the Departmental Selection Committee rather than the Commission.
c. The Commission replied by letter dated 16.09.2021, expressing their inability to respond on the ground of the Chairman having retired and the new appointment having not taken place. The Government then 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 (hereinafter ‘UGC’) guidelines or regulations.
d. A change in Government happened on 20.09.2021 after which on 09.10.2021, 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: (a) Punjab University, Patiala, and (b) the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. 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. This decision was placed for approval before the Chief Minister on 12.10.2021, with the observation that it shall subsequently be placed for approval before the Council of Ministers; latter approval was never obtained.
e. On 18.10.2021, Government issued a memorandum conveying to Director Public Instructions (Colleges) (hereinafter ‘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.
f. 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. On 26.11.2021 in CWP No. 22446 of 2021, before the results were published, while issuing notice, it was clarified that the selection shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
g. Vide order dated 08.08.2022, the learned 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.
h. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the State of Punjab as well as the candidates who w
