New Delhi, July 15 (UNI) The Supreme Court has set aside the appointments of 1,091 assistant professors and 67 librarians made by the Punjab Government in October 2021, reiterating that the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations are binding on a State that has adopted them.
A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed on Monday that there was “total arbitrariness” in the entire selection process, carried out for “narrow political gains” ahead of the February 2022 assembly elections.
The Court set aside the judgment of the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had reversed a single judge’s decision quashing the entire selection.
The bench noted glaring violations, including bypassing the State Public Service Commission and flouting the 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, 2010.
Well-established selection parameters prescribed by the UGC were replaced with a simple multiple-choice question-based test, which the Court said was “unheard of” for the selection of assistant professors.
Rejecting the State’s argument that UGC regulations are not mandatory, the Court referred to its 2022 judgment in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, which held that UGC regulations have a mandatory character and are binding on all universities, State or Central, receiving UGC financial assistance.
Justice Dhulia, writing the judgment, explained that State regulations are subservient to the UGC Act and Regulations.
The Court observed:
“UGC Regulations are made under the UGC Act enacted by Parliament under Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII, whereas State Governments exercise powers under Entry 25 of List III for education. Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry 66 of List I.
Hence, laws made under Entry 66 of the Union List prevail over any law made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List.”
The bench emphasised that the 2010 UGC Regulations, specifically adopted by Punjab in July 2013, continued to apply despite their supersession by the 2018 regulations.
The Court criticised the Punjab Government’s last-minute decision to abandon UGC regulations and eliminate the State PSC from the recruitment process, calling it “narrow political and clearly arbitrary.”
It held:
“Abandoning a time-tested and uniformly followed method of selecting Assistant Professors in higher education with a multiple-choice questions-based written examination is unacceptable, especially when the State itself had adopted the UGC selection process.”
The Court said replacing a rigorous selection process with a multiple-choice question test, without viva-voce, was arbitrary, violated due procedure, and could not withstand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Hence, it restored the single judge’s decision striking down the entire selection process, holding that the High Court division bench erred in interfering with that conclusion.
Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta, Raju Ramachandran, Preetesh Kapur, and Rekha Palli appeared for various appellants.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rakesh Dwivedi, and PS Patwalia appeared for private respondents.
Additional Advocate General Shadan Farasat appeared for the State.
