AICTE Career-Advancement Rules Do Not Apply to Open Recruitment, Supreme Court Holds

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard an appeal by the Gujarat Public Service Commission challenging a Division Bench order of the Gujarat High Court which had set aside a Single Judge’s dismissal of a writ petition by an unsuccessful candidate for the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering). The primary question related to whether the All India Council for Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme) Regulations, 2012 (AICTE Regulations) governed direct recruitment under the State’s Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court order. It held that the AICTE Regulations were framed for career advancement of incumbent teachers and did not operate as recruitment rules for open competitive vacancies conducted under State Rules. The Court observed that applying the AICTE Regulations to an open recruitment would be to “stretch the AICTE Regulations beyond its text, context, and purpose.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the AICTE, as apex statutory authority in the field of technical education, lays down uniform norms and standards and that its regulations, particularly those concerning qualifications, academic standards and quality control, ordinarily prevail over inconsistent State prescriptions, so as to ensure national coherence and excellence in technical education. However, the AICTE Regulations relied upon by the candidate are not recruitment regulations but are the regulations framed for advancement of career of incumbent teachers already embedded within the academic system. The regulations are designed to advance a career, not to initiate one at a particular rung. To apply AICTE Regulations to a candidate participating in recruitment for the post of Professors in the Engineering Colleges in the State conducted by the Commission under State Rules framed by the State, would be to stretch the AICTE Regulations beyond its text, context, and purpose. The law does not permit a regulation crafted as a ladder to be used as a gate. Thus, the AICTE Regulations do not apply to the process of direct recruitment under the State Rules, which is the subject matter of this appeal. The issue is answered accordingly.” The Court further noted that a candidate who had participated in the selection process “without protest” could not challenge the rules of the game only after being declared unsuccessful.

Background The Commission issued an advertisement dated 23 September 2015 for seven professor posts, including Professor (Plastic Engineering). The recruitment proceeded under State Rules and specified assessment by interview; the candidate appeared at the interview on 17 December 2015 but secured 28 out of 100 marks against the minimum qualifying marks of 45 for an unreserved female candidate, and was not recommended. The candidate filed a writ petition invoking the AICTE Regulations and sought appointment; the Single Judge dismissed the petition on 25 November 2024, upholding the Commission’s interview-based selection and observing that the expert committee’s assessment did not call for judicial interference. The Division Bench, however, set aside that order on 20 August 2025, concluded that AICTE Regulations governed even direct recruitment to Professor posts in Government Engineering Colleges, declared the selection process invalid, and directed the Commission to reconduct evaluation adhering to AICTE norms and to issue fresh notices and sealed results.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Commission contended that the Division Bench erred in applying AICTE Regulations to open recruitment conducted under State Rules and emphasised that the advertisement expressly provided for interview-based assessment. The respondent argued that AICTE Regulations, framed under parliamentary enactment, prevailed over state rules and that estoppel could not be invoked against her. The Supreme Court analysed the statutory architecture of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the 2012 Regulations, holding that those Regulations addressed promotion and progression within the career advancement scheme and presupposed incumbency and an institutional service record; they were not recruitment rules for candidates outside the academic system. The Court noted the settled principle that a candidate who participated without protest could not later challenge the process, citing precedent. While the Court acknowledged the respondent’s substantial academic credentials, it held that courts did not make appointments and that a recruitment concluded in 2015 could not be reopened in 2025 on the basis of Regulations that never applied. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court order, upheld the 2015 recruitment, allowed the appeal and directed that there be no order as to costs.

Case No.: 2026 INSC 70 (Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 @ SLP (C) No.27710 of 2025) Case Title: Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Senior counsel for Gujarat Public Service Commission (as per record) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah (as per record)