Gujarat Public Service Commission vs Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2026 INSC 70 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ SLP (C) No.27710 of 2025)

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION … APPELLANT

Versus

GNANESHWARY DUSHYANTKUMAR SHAH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

ALOK ARADHE, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal filed by Gujarat State Public Service

Commission (Commission), assails an order dated 20.08.2025

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in a

Letters Patent Appeal. By the aforesaid order, the Division Bench

has set aside the order dated 25.11.2024 of the learned Single

Judge by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.1

(candidate) seeking appointment to the post of Professor (Plastic

Engineering) was dismissed.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The undisputed facts are that an advertisement was issued on Signature Not Verified

23.09.2015 by the Commission for recruitment to seven posts of Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2026.01.19 13:39:13 IST Reason:

Professors in various disciplines including one post of Professor 1 (Plastic Engineering) in Government Engineering Colleges in the

State of Gujarat. The candidate applied for the post of Professor

(Plastic Engineering). The recruitment was conducted under the

Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012

(hereinafter, referred to as the “State Rules”), framed by the State

Government and in accordance with general guidelines for the

advertisement. Clauses 15(7), 15(8) and 15(9) prescribe for the

minimum selection criteria, whereas Clause 16(1) of aforesaid

general guidelines provide for assessment on the basis of

personal interview.

4. The candidate did not challenge the advertisement, the

eligibility criteria and method of selection prior to her

participation in the process of selection. The candidate

participated in the interview held on 17.12.2015. The minimum

qualifying marks prescribed for female candidates of unreserved

category was 45 marks out of 100 marks. The candidate secured

28 marks only and was, therefore, not recommended by the

Commission, for selection.

5. The candidate, after being declared unsuccessful in the

interview, for the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering), invoked

the All India Council for Technical Education (Career 2 Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff

in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012 (“AICTE

Regulations”), to challenge the process of selection for the post in

question in a writ petition. The candidate also sought a direction

to the Commission to offer her the post of Professor (Plastic

Engineering).

6. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 25.11.2024 inter

alia held that the candidate is bound by Clause 3 of the

advertisement and Clause 15 of general guidelines for

advertisement which provided for selection on the basis of an

interview. It was further held that the candidate participated in

the process of selection without any protest. It was also held that

the decision with regard to her suitability for the post in

question, has been taken by a Committee of experts, with which

no interference is called for in exercise of the powers of judicial

review. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed.

7. Being aggrieved, the candidate preferred an appeal. The

Division Bench in its order dated 20.08.2025, inter alia held that

the AICTE Regulations govern even the direct recruitment to the

post of a Professor in Government Engineering Colleges in the

State and the Commission’s interview-based process for selection 3 is in violation of the AICTE Regulations. On the aforesaid

premise, the entire selection process for the post in question was

invalidated. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned

Single Judge and issued following directions to the commission:

(i) The Commission for constitution of the selection

committee and qua the evaluation of performance of the

respondent, shall adhere to AICTE Regulations.

(ii) The Commission shall issue notice to the respondent

indicating the date of interview/selection within a period of

three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

(iii) The result of the selection shall be duly prepared

immediately, at the most, on the very next day of the

selection.

(iv) The result prepared by the commission shall be

produced before the court in a sealed cover indicating

complete statement of the marks within a period of one

week from the date of selection.

(v) The question of grant of other reliefs prayed by the

respondent, shall be subject to result of the selection.

In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal arises for our

consideration.

4 SUBMISSIONS

8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the

Division Bench erred in applying AICTE Regulations to the

recruitment process in question. It is further submitted that

advertisement clearly prescribed that the suitability of a

candidate shall be assessed on the basis of an interview. It is

contended that candidate having participated in the process of

Selection was not entitled to challenge the same.

9. On the other hand, attorney of candidate submitted that the

order passed by the Division Bench is legally unimpeachable. It is

further submitted that the AICTE Regulations framed under the

Act, enacted by the Parliament, prevail over the rules framed by

the State Government. It is contended that the principle of

estoppel cannot be invoked against the candidate. It is urged that

the candidate is highly qualified and her Fundamental Right

under Article 16 is violated. Lastly, it is contended that no

interference in this Appeal is called for.

5 ISSUE

10. The pivotal issue involved in this appeal is whether AICTE

Regulations apply to the process of direct recruitment under the

State Rules, conducted by the Commission, for filling up the post

of Professors in Government Engineering Colleges in the State of

Gujarat.

ANALYSIS

11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival

submissions and have carefully perused the records. The answer

to the issue is found not merely in text of the Regulations but in

the very architecture of the Regulations. Section 23(1) of the All

India Council for Teachers Education Act, 1987 (Act) empowers

the AICTE to frame Regulations, not inconsistent with the

provisions of the Act and the Rules and generally to carry out the

purposes of the Act. Section 10 of the Act deals with functions of

the Council. Section 10 (i) of the Act mandates the Council to lay

down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and

instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality

instructions, assessment and examinations. Section 10 (v)

empowers the Council to perform such functions as may be

prescribed. In exercise of the aforesaid powers namely, Section 6 23(1) read with Section 10 (i) and (v) of the Act, the AICTE on

08.11.2012, has framed AICTE Regulations.

12. The salient features of the aforesaid Regulations, which are

relevant for the determination of issue involved in this appeal, are

as under: -

(i) The Regulations are titled as All India Council for

Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for the

Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical

Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012.

(ii) Regulation 2.5 provides that CAS promotions from a

lower grade to a higher grade of Assistant

Professor/Associate Professor shall be conducted by a

“Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee” adhering to the

criteria laid out as API score in Performance Based

Appraisal System (PBAS) in the Tables of Appendix I.

(iii) Regulation 3 deals with stages of promotions under

career advancement scheme of incumbent and newly

appointed Assistant Professors / Associate Professors /

Professors.

(iv) Regulation 3.9 provides that Assistant Professor

completing three years of service in stage 4 and possessing 7 a Ph.D Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to

be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in

the next higher grade of Rs.10,000 (Stage 5) subject to

following:

(a) Satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS requirements as provided in Tables of Appendix 1;

and

(b) An assessment by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Professor. Provided that no teacher other than those with a Ph.D shall be promoted or appointed as Professor.

(v) Regulation 6 deals with counting of past services for

direct recruitment and promotion under the Career

Advancement Scheme.

(vi) Table-II (c), which is part of Appendix-I to the

Regulations, prescribes for minimum score of Academic

Performance Index and constitution of Selection Committee

Criteria Weightages, for Assistant Professor/equivalent

cadres (stage 1), Associate Professor/equivalent cadres

(stage 4), and Professor/equivalent cadres (stage 5).

8

13. Thus, from careful scrutiny of the aforesaid Regulations in

entirety, it is axiomatic that the Regulations provides for stages of

promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme of incumbent

and newly appointed Assistant Professors/Associate

Professors/Professors. The entire scheme of the Regulations

proceeds on one foundational basis that the person to whom the

Regulations apply must already be an incumbent or a newly

appointed Assistant Professor/Associate Professor or Professor.

The Regulations are not Recruitment Rules but are Promotion

and Progression Rules. The expression ‘direct recruitment’ is

used in the Regulations, in the limited context of Career

Advancement Scheme entry levels, i.e. in determining how a

person already within the institutional framework enters the

Career Advancement Scheme ladder. The Academic Performance

Index, the weightage table, and the Index based evaluation

system, presuppose a service profile, institutional record,

teaching performance and research output accumulated within

the academic system. The provisions of the Regulations,

therefore, cannot logically apply to a person who is not yet a part

of that system.

9

14. The candidate was an aspirant in an open competitive

recruitment conducted under the State Rules by the

Commission. The candidate was neither an incumbent Professor

nor a newly appointed Professor. She was not even Career

Advancement Scheme candidate. The reliance placed on Table-

II(C) to Appendix-I of the AICTE Regulations is misconceived, as

the same provides the criteria for grant of benefit under the

Career Advancement Scheme to Professor (stage 5). The

candidate is neither a Professor (stage 4) nor an aspirant for

promotion as Professor (stage 5) under Career Advancement

Scheme.

15. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the AICTE,

as apex statutory authority in the field of technical education,

lays down uniform norms and standards and that its regulations,

particularly those concerning qualifications, academic standards

and quality control, ordinarily prevail over inconsistent State

prescriptions, so as to ensure national coherence and excellence

in technical education. However, the AICTE Regulations relied

upon by the candidate are not recruitment regulations but are

the regulations framed for advancement of career of incumbent

teachers already embedded within the academic system. The 10 regulations are designed to advance a career, not to initiate one

at a particular rung. To apply AICTE Regulations to a candidate

participating in recruitment for the post of Professors in the

Engineering Colleges in the State conducted by the Commission

under State Rules framed by the State, would be to stretch the

AICTE Regulations beyond its text, context, and purpose. The law

does not permit a regulation crafted as a ladder to be used as a

gate. Thus, the AICTE Regulations do not apply to the process of

direct recruitment under the State Rules, which is the subject

matter of this appeal. The issue is answered accordingly.

16. The AICTE Regulations and State Rules operate in different

field, therefore, the question of one superseding the other does

not arise. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the

candidate that qualification prescribed by the State Government,

for the post of Professor is contrary to the AICTE Regulations but

the grievance of the candidate is qua the evaluation of criteria of

performance of the candidates.

17. The Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in

assuming that the AICTE Regulations override the State

Recruitment Rules in the matter of initial appointment. The Act

does not empower the AICTE, to abolish the State Rules for 11 recruitment in Government Colleges, but empowers it to ensure

standard of education and service conditions, particularly for

career progression.

18. There is yet another fatal infirmity in the challenge to

selection process at the behest of the candidate. The criteria for

interview and qualifying marks were expressly stated. The

candidate applied, appeared and took her chance. Only after

being declared unsuccessful, did she seek to invoke an entirely

different regulatory regime. It is a settled principle that a

candidate having participated in the process of selection, without

protest, cannot challenge the Rules of the game after being

declared unsuccessful1. The Division Bench of the High Court

erred in holding that the candidate was not precluded from

challenging the process of selection.

19. We must, however, take note of the fact that though the

records indicate substantial research credentials, international

publications and technical expertise on the part of the candidate.

Yet, the fact remains that the courts do not make appointments.

A recruitment concluded in 2015 cannot be reopened in 2025, on

the basis of the Regulations that never applied to it.

1 ANUPAL SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2020) 2 SCC 173

12 CONCLUSION

20. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated

20.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court,

cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The

recruitment conducted by the Commission in pursuance of the

advertisement dated 23.09.2015 is upheld. In the result, the

appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

………….……………….………….………J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

.…………..…….……………….……..….J. [ALOK ARADHE]

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 19, 2026.

13