Supreme Court quashes appointment of 1,158 assistant professors, librarians in Punjab

The Supreme Court on Monday quashed the appointment of 1,158 assistant professors and librarians in Government Degree Colleges in Punjab, holding there's "total arbitrariness in their selection that was done in violation of the University Grants Commission (UGC) norms.

Advertisement

“In the case at hand, the state did not adhere to UGC regulations and took the posts out of the purview of the Commission without following the procedure prescribed under the law. And this was done suddenly without any valid reason and thus, it would amount to arbitrariness and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law,” a Bench led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said.

The Bench – which also included Justice K Vinod Chandran -- set aside the September 23, 2024 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had upheld these appointments.

Allowing the appeal filed by Mandeep Singh and others, the top court directed the Punjab government to initiate the recruitment process afresh as per the 2018 UGC regulations now in force in the state.

The Bench said that “we are aware of the fact that quashing of the entire recruitment process may cause hardships for the selected candidates, but at the same time, there is no equity in the favour of selected candidates as challenge to the recruitment was made during the pendency of the process and appointments were subject to the court orders. A gross illegality like the present recruitment cannot be ignored.”

The Punjab Director of Higher Education issued a public notice process in October 2021 inviting online applications for assistant professor posts for various subjects and for librarians ahead of the state assembly elections. Several candidates moved the high court against it, alleging irregularities in the selection process.

“The state cannot defend such an arbitrary practice in the garb of a policy decision. We have to keep in mind that these were the posts of assistant professors for which a specialised body like UGC has prescribed a process for the selections, which includes appreciation of academic work of a candidate, his/her performance in viva-voce, amongst others. Just a simple Multiple-Choice Question-based written exam cannot be sufficient to check the suitability of such candidates. Even if it is, then also, in the present case, the sudden replacement of a time-tested recruitment process with a new process, was not only arbitrary but was done without following the due procedure, which vitiates the entire process,” the top court said.

Writing the verdict for the Bench, Justice Dhulia said, “Even if we ignore the argument of political expediency, we cannot but notice the executive hegemony in reversing a decision of the Council of Ministers, without reference to the said body. It also undermines the quality of selection, since there was no comprehensive exercise to examine the merit of a candidate. The written test did not challenge the innovative faculty of a candidate. One was not required to give an elaborate answer to a question as is done in a subjective type of test. Instead, it was an objective type of test in which the correct answer was to be given from multiple-choice of answers. The elimination of the viva-voce, which is such a vital component in the overall appreciation of merit of a candidate, who has to teach in a higher education institute, was another grave error.”