Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
Gujarat Public Service Commission – Appellant
Versus
Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 27710 of 2025)
Decided On : 19-01-2026
(A) Service Law – Selection – Candidate having participated in process of selection, without protest, cannot challenge Rules of game after being declared unsuccessful – In present case, criteria for interview and qualifying marks were expressly stated – Candidate applied, appeared and took her chance – Only after being declared unsuccessful, did she seek to invoke an entirely different regulatory regime – Division Bench of High Court erred in holding that candidate was not precluded from challenging process of selection – Order of High Court set aside. (Paras 18 and 19)
(B) All India Council for Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012 – Regulations 2.5, 3, 3.9 and 6 – Technical education – Norms and standards – Regulations are not Recruitment Rules but are Promotion and Progression Rules – Expression ‘direct recruitment’ is used in Regulations, in limited context of Career Advancement Scheme entry levels – Academic Performance Index, weightage table, and Index based evaluation system, presuppose a service profile, institutional record, teaching performance and research output accumulated within academic system – Provisions of Regulations cannot logically apply to a person who is not yet a part of that system – To apply AICTE Regulations to a candidate participating in recruitment for post of Professors in Engineering Colleges in the State conducted by Commission under State Rules framed by State, would be to stretch AICTE Regulations beyond its text, context, and purpose – Law does not permit a regulation crafted as a ladder to be used as a gate – AICTE Regulations do not apply to process of direct recruitment under State Rules. (Paras 13 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal filed by Gujarat State Public Service Commission (Commission), assails an order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in a Letters Patent Appeal. By aforesaid order, Division Bench has set aside Order dated 25.11.2024 of Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 (candidate) seeking appointment to the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering) was dismissed.
The pivotal issue involved in this appeal is whether AICTE Regulations apply to process of direct recruitment under State Rules, conducted by Commission, for filling up post of Professors in Government Engineering Colleges in the State of Gujarat.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The recruitment conducted by Commission in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23.09.2015 is upheld.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The court concluded that the AICTE Regulations do not apply to the process of direct recruitment conducted under State Rules for filling the post of Professors in Government Engineering Colleges. The Regulations are designed as promotion and progression rules within an existing academic system, not as recruitment rules for initial appointment. Since the candidate was participating in a competitive recruitment process under the State Rules and was neither an incumbent nor a candidate under the Career Advancement Scheme, the Regulations could not be invoked to challenge the process. Additionally, the court emphasized that a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest cannot later challenge the rules of the process after being declared unsuccessful. Consequently, the court set aside the order of the higher court that had invalidated the recruitment process and upheld the validity of the recruitment conducted by the Commission.
JUDGMENT
ALOK ARADHE, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal filed by Gujarat State Public Service Commission (Commission), assails an order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in a Letters Patent Appeal. By the aforesaid order, the Division Bench has set aside the order dated 25.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 (candidate) seeking appointment to the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering) was dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The undisputed facts are that an advertisement was issued on 23.09.2015 by the Commission for recruitment to seven posts of Professors in various disciplines including one post of Professor (Plastic Engineering) in Government Engineering Colleges in the State of Gujarat. The candidate applied for the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering). The recruitment was conducted under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012 (hereinafter, referred to as the “State Rules”), framed by the State Government and in accordance with general guidelines for the advertisement. Clauses 15(7), 15(8) and 15(9) prescribe for the minimum selection criteria, whereas Clause 16(1) of aforesaid general guidelines provide for assessment on the basis of personal interview.
4. The candidate did not challenge the advertisement, the eligibility criteria and method of selection prior to her participation in the process of selection. The candidate participated in the interview held on 17.12.2015. The minimum qualifying marks prescribed for female candidates of unreserved category was 45 marks out of 100 marks. The candidate secured 28 marks only and was, therefore, not recommended by the Commission, for selection.
5. The candidate, after being declared unsuccessful in the interview, for the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering), invoked the All India Council for Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012 (“AICTE Regulations”), to challenge the process of selection for the post in question in a writ petition. The candidate also sought a direction to the Commission to offer her the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering).
6. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 25.11.2024 inter alia held that the candidate is bound by Clause 3 of the advertisement and Clause 15 of general guidelines for advertisement which provided for selection on the basis of an interview. It was further held that the candidate participated in the process of selection without any protest. It was also held that the decision with regard to her suitability for the post in question, has been taken by a Committee of experts, with which no interference is called for in exercise of the powers of judicial review. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved, the candidate preferred an appeal. The Division Bench in its order dated 20.08.2025, inter alia held that the AICTE Regulations govern even the direct recruitment to the post of a Professor in Government Engineering Colleges in the State and the Commission’s interview-based process for selection is in violation of the AICTE Regulations. On the aforesaid premise, the entire selection process for the post in question was invalidated. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and issued following directions to the commission:
(ii) The Commission shall issue notice to the respondent indicating the date of interview/selection within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
(iii) The result of the selection shall be duly prepared immediately, at the most, on the very next day of the selection.
(iv) The result prepared by the commission shall be produced before the court in a sealed cover indicating complete
(1) Selection – Candidate having participated in process of selection, without protest, cannot challenge Rules of game after being declared unsuccessful.(2) Law does not permit a regulation crafted a....
Recruitment processes must strictly adhere to established rules to ensure transparency and correct candidate evaluation.
The Board of Governors of IIT Kanpur has the authority to establish recruitment rules and qualifications, and courts should not interfere in policy matters unless there is a clear legal error.
Important Point – Appointment – Introducing new requirements into selection process after entire selection process was completed amounted to changing rules of game after game was played which is not ....
The AICTE has the authority to prescribe both qualifications and methods of appointment for teaching staff in technical institutions, as it relates to maintaining educational standards.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
