Constitutional Mandate of Fair Recruitment Ignored: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Arbitrary Assistant Professor Appointments

“Public Service Commissions Cannot Be Bypassed at Whim — ‘Shall Be Consulted’ Means Must Be Consulted, Rules Supreme Court.” Supreme Court quashing the recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians in Punjab Government colleges. The Court held that Punjab had acted arbitrarily by bypassing the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), violating Article 320 of the Constitution and the binding University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations. Observing that such decisions were taken “in burning haste” and “for narrow political ends,” the Court directed the State to start fresh recruitment strictly under the UGC Regulations, 2018.

The case arose from Punjab’s decision to fill longstanding vacancies in government degree colleges. Initially, in January 2021, requisitions were properly sent to the PPSC for filling these posts. However, following a change of government and impending state elections, Punjab abruptly decided to abandon the PPSC process and filled the posts through departmental selection committees based on a simplistic written test conducted by two state universities. The entire recruitment was completed within two months in late 2021, with appointments hurriedly made before court challenges could be resolved.

The recruitment was challenged before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, where a Single Judge quashed the process citing violation of constitutional norms and UGC standards. The Division Bench reversed this, upholding the recruitment. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Improper Bypass of Public Service Commission:

The Supreme Court was emphatic that the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians were within the statutory purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission. The Court held:

“Selection of these posts was within the purview of the State Commission, and it was mandatory that it ought to be consulted.”

The Court rejected the state’s post-facto amendments removing these posts from the PPSC’s domain, terming it “nothing but a response to the writ petitions which had been filed by this time.”

Justice Dhulia remarked on the central purpose of public service commissions:
“The purpose of a Union Public Service Commission or State Public Service Commission is to remove impartiality and political influence while making selections to public posts.”

The Court clarified that the mandatory language of Article 320(3)(a) requires the PPSC’s consultation in recruitment matters unless proper procedure for exclusion is followed — which was not done here.

Binding Nature of UGC Regulations:

The Court categorically held Punjab was bound by the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges) Regulations, 2010, adopted by the State on 30 July 2013.

“These Regulations were adopted by incorporation, not mere reference, and thus continued to apply even after repeal by the 2018 UGC Regulations,” declared the Bench.

Rejecting the State’s argument that UGC Regulations are mere guidelines, the Court relied on precedents such as Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) and Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995), observing:
“UGC Regulations, framed under Entry 66 of List I, override inconsistent state practices under Entry 25 of List III, especially in matters of higher education.”

The Court found Punjab’s selection process, which relied solely on a multiple-choice question test and eliminated qualitative assessments like API scores and interviews, to be in total violation of UGC norms.

Political Expediency and Arbitrary Policy Shift:

One of the most scathing observations from the Court was its indictment of political motives behind the recruitment process. The Court said:

“It was an act of political pragmatism and nothing more… one cannot fail to notice the burning haste with which this entire exercise was undertaken by the powers that be.”

The Bench condemned the last-minute policy shift and stated,
“Sudden change without valid reasons will always be seen with suspicion… such arbitrary practice in the garb of a policy decision cannot be defended.”

Further, the Court emphasized that,
“Any decision taken by the State must be reasoned, not arbitrary. State action done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law.”

Citing the foundational principle from Ramana Dayaram Shetty’s case (1979), the Court reminded:
“Where the Government is dealing with the public, including in giving jobs, it cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will.”

Violation of Legitimate Expectations and Article 14:

In applying the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Court observed:
“The candidates had legitimate expectations of a fair, transparent process through PPSC following UGC norms. A deviation from such a long-standing practice without reason amounts to a violation of Article 14.”

The Court found no equity in favour of the selected candidates since the recruitment was challenged in a timely manner and appointments were expressly made subject to the outcome of litigation.

Upholding the Single Judge’s decision, the Supreme Court quashed the entire recruitment process, setting aside the Division Bench’s judgment. The Court directed:

“The entire recruitment stands quashed, and the State is directed to initiate recruitment afresh, strictly in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2018.”

The Court acknowledged the hardships to candidates but concluded,
“A gross illegality like the present recruitment cannot be ignored.”

This judgment is a resounding affirmation of constitutional principles in public employment. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the State cannot bypass constitutional mandates, ignore statutory recruitment norms, or rush through appointments for political gain. The ruling reinforces the sanctity of impartial recruitment through public service commissions and the binding nature of UGC regulations in higher education appointments.

By holding the Punjab government accountable, the Court has sent a clear message:
“In a constitutional democracy, even political exigencies must bow before the rule of law and procedural fairness.”

Date of Decision: 14 July 2025