Supreme Court: Abandoning Uniformly Followed Method Of Selecting Assistant Professors In Higher Education With MCQ-Based Written Exam Unacceptable

The Supreme Court observed that abandoning a time tested and uniformly followed method of selecting Assistant Professors in higher education with Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQ) based written examination is unacceptable.

The Court observed thus in a batch of Civil Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Division Bench, which reversed the findings of the Single Judge and upheld the selections made by the State for the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Government Degree Colleges of Punjab.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “The recruitment for teaching posts in higher education on the basis of scores in an objective type written test, on grounds that such a test is non arbitrary whereas viva voce and appreciation of other aspects such as academic work could be abused and could be unfairly applied, is an argument which is puerile to say the least. Abandoning a time tested and uniformly followed method of selecting Assistant Professors in higher education with Multiple-Choice Questions based written examination is unacceptable; especially when the State itself has adopted the selection process laid down by the expert body which is also the apex statutory body, the UGC constituted under Entry 66 in the Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.”

The Bench further held that the giving away of a rigorous criteria laid down in the UGC (University Grants Commission) regulations with a single, MCQ-based written test, and the complete elimination of the viva voce, all establish the arbitrary nature of the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Senior Advocates Raju Ramchandran, Nidhesh Gupta, Preetesh Kapur, and Rekha Palli appeared for the Appellants while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Shadan Farasat, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P.S. Patwalia appeared for the Respondents.

Case Background

In January 2021, the State of Punjab had sent separate requisitions to the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), for recruitment of 931 Assistant Professors and 50 Librarians in Government Degree Colleges in the State. Consequently, correspondences exchanged, the PPSC engaged 24 subject experts to prepare the syllabus for the competitive examinations and honorarium was paid to them. Later, an additional 160 posts of Assistant Professors and 17 posts for Librarians were created and sanctioned for newly established colleges and thereafter, the State’s Department of Higher Education sought PPSC’s consent to fill these posts through the Departmental Selection Committee rather than the PPSC. The Commission expressed its inability to respond on the ground of the Chairman having retired and the new appointment having not taken place. The Government then by a memorandum approved the recruitment of 160 and 17 posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians respectively, through Departmental Selection Committees which though had to follow the UGC guidelines or regulations.

A change in Government happened in 2021 after which the selection process was reviewed in a meeting chaired by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education. Resultantly, the entire process of recruitment was changed and it was decided that selection would now be made only on the basis of a Written Test, which will be conducted by two separate selection committees of two State Universities. In a little over a month, the exam was conducted and the result was announced. Meanwhile, the Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court, challenging the memorandum and advertisements. The Single Judge allowed the said Petitions and quashed the entire recruitment process. However, the Division Bench upheld the recruitment by quashing the Single Judge’ Order. Challenging the same, the Appellants were before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, said, “In short, we find that there is a total arbitrariness in the present selection. The memo of Council of Ministers dated 17.09.2021 shows that State wanted to recruit only on 160 posts of Assistant Professors and on 17 posts of Librarians through departmental selection committee on an urgent basis as these were for the newly opened colleges. As we have already stated, even in those cases, the recruitment was to be made by following the UGC Regulations.”

The Court noted that a mere 45-day deadline was set for the commencement and conclusion of the whole recruitment process and ultimately within a span of two months, not only was the recruitment process concluded, but even appointment letters were issued.

“One cannot fail to notice the burning haste with which this entire exercise was undertaken by the powers that be. It has thus been repeatedly pressed by the appellants that all this was motivated by political exigency in the form of the impending Assembly elections in the State of Punjab”, it added.

Moreover, the Court said that State cannot defend such an arbitrary practice in the garb of a policy decision and just a simple MCQ-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. 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 further observed.

The Court was of the view that 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, is another grave error.

“The State and its instrumentalities have a duty and responsibility to act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Any decision taken by the State must be reasoned, and not arbitrary. This Court has consistently held that when a thing is done in a post haste manner, mala fides would be presumed, and further that anything done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law. We may refer here to a few judgments of this Court which lay down this proposition”, it further observed.

The Court said that the Single Judge had rightly struck down the entire selection process, and the Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with that conclusion.

“… it is a settled principle that when the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it should be done in that manner alone. … True, the State is entitled to change its policy, yet a sudden change without valid reasons will always be seen with suspicion. Even in cases where there is no statutory prescription of any particular way of doing a thing, the executive must observe the long-standing practice, and a deviation from such a practice would require passing the muster of reasonableness, which is a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution”, it also enunciated.

Conclusion

The Court remarked that the State miserably failed to justify the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process and failed to give any valid reason for not adopting the UGC Regulations and avoiding the Public Service Commission in the recruitment in question.

“Moreover, as discussed earlier, the reason for this departure were narrow political and clearly arbitrary. … Before parting, we would like to observe 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”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the impugned Judgment, quashed the entire recruitment, and directed the State to initiate the recruitment process as per 2018 UGC Regulations.

Cause Title- Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 834)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates Raju Ramchandran, Nidhesh Gupta, Preetesh Kapur, Rekha Palli, AORs Chritarth Palli, Aanchal Jain, Aditi Gupta, and Advocate Karan Dewan.

Respondents: AAG Shadan Farasat, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rakesh Dwivedi, P.S. Patwalia, DAG Vivek Jain, AORs Siddhant Sharma, Vikrant Pachnanda, Amarjeet Singh, Talha Abdul Rahman, Mohit D. Ram, Advocates Avinit Avasthi, Mukul Katyal, M Shaz Khan, Sudhanshu Tewari, Rafid Akhter, Faizan Ahmed, Rajul Shrivastav, and Nayan Gupta.

Click here to read/download the Judgment