Back
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE
Gujarat Public Service Commission – Appellant
Versus
Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah – Respondent
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
No cases in the provided list are explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. The case law list does not contain language indicating that any decision has been overruled or invalidated by subsequent rulings. Therefore, there are no cases to categorize as bad law based solely on the provided information.
Followed / Affirmed:
The case emphasizes principles such as reservation percentage being related to cadre strength, the non-justiciability of interview results once the candidate has participated, and limitations on the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142. These statements suggest that the case has been considered as a settled or guiding precedent in these areas, though explicit treatment (such as "followed" or "affirmed") is not specified.
Distinguished / Clarified:
The case clarifies that selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to appointment, and that powers under Article 142 cannot be exercised to override express statutory law. These points may have been distinguished or clarified in subsequent jurisprudence, but no explicit treatment pattern is provided in the list.
Rejected / Criticized:
There is no indication in the provided text that the case has been criticized or rejected.
Questioned / Uncertain:
The treatment pattern is not explicitly stated for any of the points. The language appears to present legal principles rather than referencing subsequent judicial treatment. Without explicit references, it is difficult to determine if the case has been questioned or overruled.
All points in the case law list are presented as legal principles without explicit indication of subsequent judicial treatment. Therefore, treatment status remains uncertain, and no definitive categorization as overruled or bad law can be made based solely on this information.
**Source :** Anupal Singh VS State of U. P through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department - Supreme Court
(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.
The court affirmed the validity of prescribed qualifications for recruitment, emphasizing legislative authority and restricted judicial review in educational matters.
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
