AICTE Regulations Don't Apply To Direct Recruitment Of Engineering Professors Conducted By State PSCs: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (January 19) held that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Regulations do not apply in matters of direct recruitment for the post of professors in Engineering colleges conducted by the State's Public Service Commissions.

“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.”, observed a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, while setting the Gujarat High Court's decision which gave primacy to AICTE Regulations over State Recruitment rules in matters of recruitment of the Professor in State's Engineering Colleges.

Background

The Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) had issued a recruitment advertisement for the seven posts of Professors in various disciplines including one post of Professor (Plastic Engineering) in Government Engineering Colleges in the State of Gujarat. The Respondent-candidate had applied for the recruitment drive which was conducted in accordance with Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012.

The candidate did not challenge the advertisement, the eligibility criteria and method of selection prior to her participation in the process of selection. Only after being unsuccessful in the interview rounds, the Respondent-candidate challenged the selection process, calling it against the AICTE Regulations.

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed his Writ Petition, the Division Bench overturned the Single Judge decision, issuing fresh directions to the Appellant to constitute the selection committee and to evaluate the performance of the respondent, as per the AICTE Regulations.

Aggrieved by the High Court's directions, GPSC moved to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Disagreeing with the High Court's directions, the judgment authored by Justice Aradhe at the outset held that Rthe espondent, having participated in the process of selection, without protest, cannot challenge the Rules of the game after being declared unsuccessful.

Furthermore, on the question of applicability of the AICTE Regulations to the Recruitment drive conducted by the State as per its Recruitment Rules, the Court held that the ACITE Regulations are the promotion and progression rules, being applied to assess the performance index of the academicians to mark their career progression, therefore recruitment drive conducted by the State shall proceed as per State's recruitment rules.

“…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 court observed.

Another reason given by the Court for AICTE Regulations inapplicability to the present case, was that the AICTE Regulations applies to an individual who already holds the position of Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor post, not the one who are yet to be part of the system.

“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.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The Single Judge's decision justifying the recruitment conducted by the Appellant was restored.

Cause Title: GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus GNANESHWARY DUSHYANTKUMAR SHAH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 64

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s): 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

For Respondent(s): Respondent-in-person