'UGC Regulations Binding On State Once Adopted' : Supreme Court Quashes Appointments Of 1091 Asst Professors In Punjab

Reiterating that the regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC) are binding on a State which has adopted them, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 14) set aside the appointments of 1,091 assistant professors and 67 librarians made by the Punjab Government in October 2021.

The Court observed that there was "total arbitrariness" in the entire process, which was carried out for "narrow political gains" ahead of the assembly elections in February 2022.

A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the judgment of the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had reversed a single judge judgment quashing the entire selection.

The Court noted several glaring violations, such as the by-passing of the State Public Service Commission and the flouting of 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 of 2010. Well-considered selection parameters prescribed by the UGC were replaced with a simple multiple-choice question-type test, which, the Court said,  "is unheard of" for the selection of Assistant Professors.

The Court rejected the State's argument that UGC regulations are not mandatory. Reference was made to the 2022 judgment in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) 5 SCC 179, which that UGC Regulations have a mandatory character and are binding on all universities, State or Central, that have opted to receive the financial assistance of the UGC.

The Court explained that the State's regulations are subservient to the UGC Act and the Regulations.

"UGC Regulations are made under UGC Act which was enacted by Parliament under Entry 66 of List I of the Schedule VII, whereas State Governments exercise powers under Entry 25 of the List III of the Schedule VII to make laws relating to “education”. Further, it is to be noted that Entry 25 of the List III is subject to Entry 66 of List I. Hence, laws, including the subordinate legislations as in the present case, made under Entry 66 of the Union List would prevail over any law made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List," observed the judgment authored by Justice Dhulia.

"In short, in the present case the UGC Regulations would be binding particularly when the State of Punjab vide its order dated 30.07.2013 had adopted 2010 UGC Regulations," the Court observed. Even though the UGC Regulations 2010 were superseded by the UGC by its 2018 regulations, the 2010 regulations will continue to apply in Punjab since the State has specifically adopted them.

Despite the binding nature of the UGC Regulations, the Court noted with concern that the Government decided to do away with them at the last minute. The Court also took note of the steps taken by the Government to eliminate the State PSC from the picture. The departure from the norms was for "narrow political and clearly arbitrary" reasons, the Court added.

"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 sudden replacement of a time-tested recruitment process with a new process, the Court said, was not only arbitrary but was done without following the due procedure, which vitiates the entire process.

"In the present case, there are multiple deficiencies. Giving away of a rigorous criteria laid down in UGC regulations with a single, multiple-choice question 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. Hence, the single judge (of HC) had rightly struck down the entire selection process, and the division bench of High Court erred in interfering with that conclusion," the Court said.

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 the private respondents; Addl Advocate General Shadan Farasat appeared for the State.

Case : Mandeep Singh and others v State of Punjab and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 701

Click here to read the judgment