The Supreme Court has set aside a Gujarat High Court’s Division Bench judgment, which had invalidated the recruitment process conducted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) for the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering), holding that the AICTE Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) Regulations, 2012, do not govern direct recruitment under State recruitment rules.
The case arose from an advertisement issued by the GPSC in September 2015 for recruitment to seven posts of Professors in Government Engineering Colleges, including one post of Professor (Plastic Engineering). The respondent candidate participated in the interview-based selection process but was not selected after securing marks below the prescribed cut-off. After being declared unsuccessful, the candidate invoked the AICTE CAS Regulations to challenge the selection process and sought appointment to the post.
While the Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the candidate had participated in the process without protest and that the selection was conducted in accordance with the applicable State Rules (Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012 ), the Division Bench reversed the decision. The High Court held that the AICTE Regulations governed even direct recruitment and invalidated the entire selection process, issuing directions for a fresh evaluation, prompting GPSC to approach the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal filed by the GPSC, the Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that the AICTE Regulations are promotion and career progression regulations applicable to incumbent teachers, and not recruitment rules governing open competitive selection. The Court observed that the entire framework of the CAS Regulations presupposes an existing service profile and cannot be extended to candidates seeking initial appointment.
The Bench clarified that while AICTE lays down uniform standards in technical education, the Regulations relied upon by the candidate operate in a different field from State recruitment rules. It held that applying CAS Regulations to direct recruitment would amount to stretching them beyond their text, context, and purpose.
The Court also reiterated the settled principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest cannot subsequently challenge the criteria after being declared unsuccessful. It noted that a recruitment concluded in 2015 could not be reopened a decade later on the basis of regulations that were never applicable to it.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and upheld the recruitment conducted by the GPSC. There was no order as to costs.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Premal Joshi, Adv. Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv. Ms. Prerana Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Prina Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, AOR
Respondent- in-person
