Statutory Regulations Override Recruitment Advertisements: Karnataka High Court Upholds AICTE 2019 Eligibility Norms in Associate Professor Selection

Karnataka High Court delivered a pivotal ruling affirming that appointments to academic posts in technical institutions must conform to binding statutory regulations, even if the recruitment process has already commenced. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi held that the AICTE Regulations, 2019, being a form of subordinate legislation, prevail over any administrative advertisement or earlier norms, and therefore, a corrigendum to the recruitment notification was not only permissible but legally mandated.

“In the given circumstances, clearly no appointment can be made contrary to the AICTE Regulations, 2019 which were in force at the material time,” the Court held, dismissing the writ appeal filed by Dr. Y.S. Sumathy, a candidate whose name appeared in the top position of the original merit-cum-eligibility list.

“A Select List Prepared Contrary to Law Confers No Enforceable Right to Appointment”: Court Emphasizes Limits of Candidate Expectations

The appellant, Dr. Y.S. Sumathy, had applied for the post of Associate Professor in Instrumentation Technology under the Scheduled Caste category, following an advertisement issued by Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology on 25 February 2020. The notification invited applications to fill backlog reserved vacancies, but did not mention compliance with the AICTE Regulations, 2019, which had already been notified and adopted by the State prior to the closing date for applications.

After being placed first in the merit list published on 11 May 2022, Dr. Sumathy sought directions from the Court to compel the government to approve the list and appoint her. However, the Director of Technical Education refused, citing that the eligibility norms in the notification were outdated, and issued a directive to amend the recruitment advertisement via corrigendum, in accordance with Clause 1.4(g) of the AICTE Regulations, 2019.

The appellant challenged this directive, arguing that the eligibility criteria cannot be changed after the recruitment process begins, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Tej Prakash Pathak and K. Manjusree.

The High Court rejected the contention, observing:

“The principle that recruitment process cannot be altered once it has begun rests on the premise that the same is in conformity with the extant rules. That premise is absent here.”

“AICTE Regulations, 2019 Are Subordinate Legislation With Statutory Force — Their Compliance is Mandatory”

Tracing the regulatory framework, the Court noted that the AICTE 2019 Regulations were notified in the Gazette on 1 March 2019, under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, and were expressly adopted by the State Government via G.O. dated 24 March 2020, prior to the final extended deadline for applications (29 May 2020).

Quoting from the Government Order:

“The educational qualifications and service conditions of the teaching faculty should be as per AICTE 2019 regulations.”

The Court pointed out that the AICTE Regulations explicitly mandate in Clause 1.4(g):

“In cases where advertisement was published, applications invited but interviews have not been conducted till publication of this notification, the institutes/employers are required to publish corrigendum and processing of applications must be done in accordance with the provisions given in this notification.”

In the present case, although interviews were not part of the selection process, no final appointments had been made, and thus the recruitment remained incomplete.

“No Appointment Can Be Made Contrary to Statutory Eligibility Requirements”: Select List Held Legally Infirm

The High Court emphasized that even though the appellant had topped the merit list, her inclusion was based on criteria that were no longer valid after the AICTE 2019 norms came into force.

“Placement in a select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment,” the Court reiterated, drawing from Tej Prakash Pathak, while distinguishing it on facts.

The Bench held that statutory rules must govern appointments, and administrative silence or error in the advertisement cannot override binding legislation. The original advertisement failed to mention the applicable qualifications under AICTE 2019 norms, making the resulting list vitiated in law.

“This is not a case where rules of process of recruitment were altered by administrative orders after the recruitment had begun. The qualification criteria have been prescribed under subordinate legislation,” the judgment clarified.

Court Rejects Plea for Appointment, Says “Recruitment Process Cannot Trump the Law”

Dismissing the appeal, the Court held:

“We find no infirmity with the impugned letter directing that a corrigendum be carried out to expressly provide that the AICTE Regulations, 2019 are applicable.”

Reaffirming that the rules in force at the cut-off date must govern the process, the Court concluded that statutory compliance cannot be compromised for procedural finality, and a merit list prepared on the basis of outdated norms holds no legal sanctity.

Court Aligns Recruitment with Rule of Law and Academic Standards

The Karnataka High Court's ruling in Dr. Y.S. Sumathy v. State of Karnataka serves as a critical affirmation of the supremacy of statutory regulations over flawed administrative processes. By reinforcing the mandatory nature of the AICTE 2019 Regulations, the Court has ensured that technical education appointments across the State adhere to nationally uniform standards, and that institutional discretion does not override the legal framework.

In doing so, the Court not only protected the integrity of academic appointments but also clarified that no candidate—irrespective of merit position—can claim a right to appointment if the process itself stands on invalid legal footing.

Date of Decision: 15 October 2025