Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws

27 September 2024 2:14 PM

By: sayum


Punjab and Haryana High Court invalidated the recruitment process for 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians in Punjab government colleges. The court ruled that the state government's decision to change the selection criteria midway through the recruitment violated constitutional principles of fairness and natural justice. The judgment has significant implications for public employment processes in the state.

The dispute began with the Punjab government's recruitment drive launched in October 2021, to fill the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in various government-run colleges. Instead of conducting the recruitment through the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), the state entrusted two universities—Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU) and Punjabi University—to handle the process. On October 18, 2021, a memo was issued stating that the selection would be based on a written test, with part-time, contractual, and guest faculty eligible for five extra marks based on years of service, up to a maximum of five marks.

However, after the written tests were conducted in November 2021, the state government issued a corrigendum on December 18, 2021, removing the weightage for experience, meaning the final selection would be based solely on written test scores. This alteration triggered legal challenges from affected candidates, especially part-time and contractual teachers, who argued that the change was unfair and violated the established recruitment process.

Procedural fairness: They contended that changing the selection process after the tests violated established legal principles. They argued that candidates had a legitimate expectation that the rules set out before the exams would remain unchanged.

Jurisdiction of the PPSC: The petitioners questioned whether the state government had the authority to bypass the PPSC, which is the constitutional body for public service recruitments in Punjab.

Application of UGC Regulations: Another key issue was the applicability of University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, particularly regarding qualifications and selection criteria for academic staff.

The respondents, including the State of Punjab, argued that they had the right to make such changes and that the revised criteria were in the public interest. They also defended the exclusion of the PPSC, citing the state’s prerogative to assign recruitment to other bodies.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided by Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepthi Sharma, found the state government’s actions to be unconstitutional and procedurally flawed. The court criticized the abrupt removal of experience-based weightage after the selection process had already commenced. It observed that this amounted to changing the rules of the game mid-process, which is legally impermissible.

The corrigendum dated December 18, 2021, withdrawing the experience-based marks, was quashed as it unfairly penalized candidates who had relied on the initial criteria.

The entire recruitment process, including the results and appointments made, was set aside.

The PPSC should have been involved in the recruitment, given its mandate to oversee public service appointments in the state.

The UGC regulations for academic appointments should be adhered to, and the state’s failure to apply these norms was a violation.

The court specifically pointed to issues like irregularities in record-keeping, missing documents, and overwritten notations in the decision-making process, which further undermined the integrity of the recruitment. The court noted:

"The entire exercise has been done just as a camouflage for lending credence to the Department's actions… some original papers are not available, and only photocopies were made part of the decision-making process."

It emphasized that allowing such a recruitment process to stand would be a travesty of justice.

The High Court directed the State of Punjab to restart the recruitment process for Assistant Professors and Librarians, ensuring full compliance with UGC regulations and the principles of fairness and transparency. The government was also instructed to refrain from altering selection criteria mid-process in future recruitment efforts. All appointments made under the quashed process were nullified, impacting over 600 candidates who had already been appointed.

The decision marks a significant precedent for public recruitment in the state, reinforcing the requirement for adherence to constitutional and statutory norms.

Date of Decision: September 23, 2024

Jagjeet Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab​.

Latest Legal News