Supreme Court Quashes Punjab College Recruitment, Directs Fresh Selection Under UGC Rules

A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard appeals by candidates and the State against a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had upheld selections made by the State of Punjab for the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in government degree colleges. The appeals challenged the High Court’s reversal of a Single Judge’s order that had quashed the recruitment process as unlawful.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order dated 23.09.2024 and quashed the entire recruitment for 1,091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians, directing the State to initiate a fresh recruitment process in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2018 now in force in Punjab. The Court found the selection process arbitrary and procedurally defective, noting that posts within the purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission had been excluded without following the procedure in the Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 and that a retrospective amendment effected after appointments was a post-facto exercise. The Court emphasised the constitutional purpose of Public Service Commissions, observing that "impartiality, fairness and recognition of merit while selecting Public Servants are absolutely necessary in modern democracies" and that Article 320(3) required consultation with the Commission in matters of recruitment. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In short, we find that there is a total arbitrariness in the present selection. The memo of Council of Ministers dated 17.09.2021 shows that State wanted to recruit only on 160 posts of Assistant Professors and on 17 posts of Librarians through departmental selection committee on an urgent basis as these were for the newly opened colleges. As we have already stated, even in those cases, the recruitment was to be made by following the UGC Regulations. Next, the 931 and 50 posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians, which were lying vacant and in regard to which requisition had already been sent to Commission, were added and it was decided that the sole basis of the selection would be a single exam.... The learned Single Judge had rightly struck down the entire selection process, and the Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with that conclusion.”

Background The dispute arose from two requisitions sent by the State to the Punjab Public Service Commission in January 2021 for 931 Assistant Professors and 50 Librarians. An additional 160 Assistant Professor and 17 Librarian posts were sanctioned for new colleges. When the Commission was unable to proceed (the Chairperson post was vacant), the Government by memorandum dated 17.09.2021 approved recruitment for the newly created posts through Departmental Selection Committees, subject to UGC guidelines. On 09.10.2021 the Department revised the plan to fill all 1,091 Assistant Professor and 67 Librarian posts through two university-headed departmental committees on the basis of a written test; the Chief Minister approved the proposal but the Council of Ministers’ formal approval was not obtained. Advertisements issued on 19.10.2021 led to exams in November and appointment letters soon after; writ petitions challenged the process and the Single Judge quashed the recruitment on 08.08.2022 for violating UGC Regulations 2010 (which Punjab had adopted in 2013) and Article 320. A Division Bench reversed that view on 23.09.2024; the appellants approached this Court.

The Supreme Court analysed Article 320(3) and relevant regulations, distinguishing Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (1957) as dealing with disciplinary consultation under Article 320(3)(c) and not recruitment under Article 320(3)(a). The Court held that Punjab had adopted the UGC 2010 Regulations by incorporation in 2013, so they remained binding despite UGC’s later 2018 Regulations; consequently the State was bound to follow the UGC regime and the prescribed procedure in the 1955 Regulations for withdrawing posts from Commission oversight. Reliance was placed on precedents including Mahindra & Mahindra on incorporation and Gambhirdan Gadhvi on the binding force of UGC Regulations when a state or university accepted UGC assistance. The Court found the replacement of a multi-faceted UGC selection (including API and viva-voce) by a hasty objective multiple-choice test, and a retrospective amendment after appointments, to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court allowed the appeals, quashed the recruitment and directed the State to initiate recruitment in accordance with the 2018 UGC Regulations now applicable in Punjab. The Court observed that hardship to selected candidates was unfortunate but could not validate a process suffering "gross illegality" that had been challenged during its pendency.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 834 Case Title: Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raju Ramchandran, Senior Advocate; Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Advocate; Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Senior Advocate; Mrs. Rekha Palli, Senior Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate; Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate; Mr. Shadan Farasat, Additional Advocate-General (for State of Punjab)

New Delhi; July 14, 2025.