Summary
The State of Punjab's 2021 recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians in Government colleges through departmental selection committees of two State universities, on the basis of a single multiple-choice written test, was quashed as arbitrary: the posts were within the purview of the Public Service Commission and were not withdrawn by the procedure under the 1955 Regulations before the selection, and the 2010 UGC Regulations, adopted by the State by incorporation, prescribed a different selection method that was abandoned. The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's order and directed fresh recruitment under the 2018 UGC Regulations.
Issues
- Whether consultation with the State Public Service Commission under Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution could be dispensed with for recruitment to posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians without following the procedure for excluding posts from the Commission's purview under the Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955, and whether a retrospective amendment of those Regulations after the selections cured the defect.
- Whether the 2010 UGC Regulations, adopted by the State of Punjab on 30.07.2013, continued to bind the State despite their repeal by the 2018 UGC Regulations, and whether they were mandatory or directory.
- Whether the Punjab Educational Service (College Cadre) (Class II) Rules, 1976 displaced the UGC Regulations as the governing method of recruitment.
- Whether the replacement of the UGC selection process with a multiple-choice written test, the inclusion of posts already requisitioned to the Commission, and the haste of the exercise rendered the recruitment arbitrary under Article 14.
Provisions considered
- Article 320(3)(a) and its proviso, Constitution of IndiaThe Commission 'shall be consulted' on methods of recruitment to civil posts. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, which held Article 320(3) directory, concerned clause (c) (an individual disciplinary matter) and is binding, but it also stressed that once regulations are framed under the proviso they must be followed in letter and spirit. Since the 1955 Regulations had not taken these posts out of the Commission's purview, selection through the Commission was mandatory. (¶¶ 9, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Regulations 20, 21 and 22, Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 and Regulations 20 to 22 governing the Commission's workExclusion of posts from the Commission requires a reference to the Commission for its views, examination with the advice of the Personnel Department, approval of the Council of Ministers, and then amendment of the 1955 Regulations; differences of opinion go to the Chief Minister. Admittedly this was not followed: the Commission disagreed on 16.11.2021, the examination went ahead, and the Regulations were amended retrospectively on 26.03.2022 only after appointments, a post facto exercise in response to the writ petitions. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Section 26(1)(e) and (g); Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, University Grants Commission Act, 1956The 2010 UGC Regulations, framed under Section 26(1)(e) and (g) and laid before Parliament, form part of the parent Act made under Entry 66 of the Union List, to which Entry 25 of the Concurrent List is subject; following Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi and Adhiyaman, they prevail over State law and bind the State, particularly as Punjab had adopted them by order dated 30.07.2013. (¶¶ 33, 34, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
- Selection method and API scores (Appendix III Table II-C), UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010The State's order of 30.07.2013 adopted the 2010 Regulations by incorporation, not by reference, so their repeal by the 2018 Regulations did not affect their operation in Punjab; the Council of Ministers' memorandum of 17.09.2021 itself required the departmental committee to follow them strictly (academic record and research 50%, domain knowledge and teaching skills 30%, interview 20%), yet the selection was reduced to a written test. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
- Mode of recruitment, Punjab Educational Service (College Cadre) (Class II) Rules, 1976The 1976 Rules only mandate direct recruitment to these posts and prescribe no mode or method of selection, so they did not displace the UGC standards the State had itself adopted. (¶ 47)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaState action must be fair, reasoned and non-arbitrary; action in undue haste raises a presumption of mala fides, and a sudden change of policy or departure from long-standing practice without valid reasons fails the test of reasonableness. The replacement of rigorous UGC criteria with a single multiple-choice test, elimination of the viva voce, a 45-day timeline and the political backdrop of impending elections rendered the exercise arbitrary. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59)
Held
- Although Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, a binding Constitution Bench decision, held consultation under Article 320(3) to be directory, it was rendered on Article 320(3)(c) concerning an individual disciplinary matter, whereas Article 320(3)(a) concerns policy where an entire recruitment process is at stake; and that decision itself cautioned that regulations framed under the proviso must be followed in letter and spirit. Posts not excluded from the Commission's purview by the 1955 Regulations must be filled through the Commission, and a retrospective amendment made after the selection and appointments is a post facto exercise that cannot validate selections which only the Commission could have made. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 29)
- The procedure in Regulations 20 to 22 for taking posts out of the Commission's purview (reference to the Commission for its views, examination with the Personnel Department's advice, approval of the Council of Ministers, amendment of the 1955 Regulations, and reference of disagreements to the Chief Minister) was admittedly not followed; the Commission expressly disagreed, the posts already requisitioned to it were added to the departmental process, and the Council of Ministers' decision of 17.09.2021 was reversed by executive officers without reference back to that body. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 50)
- Adoption of the 2010 UGC Regulations by the State's order of 30.07.2013 was adoption by incorporation, not by reference: the Regulations became frozen as part of State practice and their repeal by the 2018 UGC Regulations had no effect on their applicability in Punjab, as confirmed by the State's own memorandum of 17.09.2021 requiring strict compliance with them. UGC Regulations, being subordinate legislation under an Act made under Entry 66 of List I, prevail over State law under Entry 25 of List III and were binding on the State. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46)
- The 1976 Rules, which merely require direct recruitment without prescribing a method, did not displace the UGC selection process the State had adopted; the State was bound to follow the UGC Regulations notwithstanding those Rules. (¶ 47)
- Abandoning a time-tested and uniformly followed method of selecting Assistant Professors, which includes appreciation of academic work and viva voce, in favour of a multiple-choice written examination is unacceptable and cannot be defended as a policy decision; the sudden replacement of the process without following due procedure, the burning haste of a 45-day timeline, and the absence of any qualitative assessment establish arbitrariness that fails Article 14. When the law prescribes a manner of doing a thing it must be done in that manner, and a sudden change of policy or departure from long-standing practice without valid reasons is viewed with suspicion. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59)
- Hardship to selected candidates does not create equity in their favour where the recruitment was challenged during the process and appointments were made subject to the outcome of the writ petitions; a gross illegality of this kind cannot be ignored. (¶ 60)
Result
Appeals allowed; Division Bench judgment dated 23.09.2024 set aside; entire recruitment of Assistant Professors and Librarians quashed; State directed to initiate the recruitment process afresh under the 2018 UGC Regulations now in force in Punjab; pending applications disposed of.