The Supreme Court held that AICTE Career Advancement Scheme Regulations, 2012 do not govern direct recruitment under State Rules. A bench of Justices Narasimha and Alok Aradhe allowed GPSC’s appeal, setting aside the Gujarat High Court decision on Professor selection.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has determined that the All India Council for Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012 (“AICTE Regulations”) do not apply to direct recruitment governed by State Rules. The Court indicated that regulations meant for career advancement are not suitable for open competitive recruitment processes.
A Bench consisting of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe ruled in favor of the appeal submitted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC), nullifying the decision made by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court which had invalidated the selection procedure for the role of Professor.
Factual Background of the Case:
This matter originated from an advertisement published by the Commission on September 23, 2015, for the recruitment of Professors in Government Engineering Colleges in Gujarat, including the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering).
This recruitment was regulated by the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012 (“State Rules”), which established that candidates would be assessed through personal interviews. The respondent candidate applied for the position and underwent the interview process on December 17, 2015. Although the minimum qualifying score for the female unreserved category was 45 out of 100, the candidate only achieved 28 marks and was not selected. After being deemed unsuccessful, the candidate contested the selection process, referencing the AICTE Regulations, 2012.
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on November 25, 2024, stating that the candidate was bound by the advertisement and had participated without objection. However, in a subsequent appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, on August 20, 2025, set aside the Single Judge’s ruling, asserting that the AICTE Regulations applied to direct recruitment and that the interview based assessment employed by the Commission violated these regulations.
The Division Bench while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge issued following directions to the commission:
- The Commission for constitution of the selection committee and qua the evaluation of performance of the respondent, shall adhere to AICTE Regulations.
- 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.
- The result of the selection shall be duly prepared immediately, at the most, on the very next day of the selection.
- 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. - The question of grant of other reliefs prayed by the respondent, shall be subject to result of the selection.
Arguments of Parties:
The appellant, GPSC, claimed that the Division Bench mistakenly applied AICTE Regulations to the recruitment process. They argued that the advertisement clearly outlined suitability evaluation through interviews and that the candidate, having participated in the selection, should be estopped from challenging it.
In contrast, the respondent argued that the AICTE Regulations, created under a Central Act, take precedence over State Rules, asserting that the candidate’s fundamental rights under Article 16 were compromised, and the principle of estoppel should not apply.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Seeks BCI Response on Petition Challenging 3-Year Ban on New Law Colleges
Legal Issue:
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?
Legal Analysis of the Court:
Justice Alok Aradhe, writing for the Bench, examined the structure of the AICTE Regulations, 2012. The Court emphasized that these regulations are labeled as a “Career Advancement Scheme” and primarily pertain to the promotion of incumbent Assistant Professors and Associate Professors.
Section 23(1) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 empowers the AICTE to frame regulations consistent with the Act and the Rules in order to fulfil its objectives. The statutory functions of the Council are enumerated under Section 10 of the Act. In particular, Section 10(i) obliges the Council to prescribe norms and standards relating to courses, curriculum, infrastructure, instructional facilities, faculty structure, qualifications, quality of teaching, evaluation, and examinations.
Section 10(v) further authorises the Council to discharge such additional functions as may be prescribed. Exercising powers under Section 23(1) read with Sections 10(i) and 10(v), the AICTE framed the relevant Regulations on 08.11.2012.
These Regulations govern promotions under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for serving and newly appointed Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, and Professors. The scheme is premised on the foundational assumption that the individual concerned is already part of the academic system, either as an incumbent or a freshly appointed faculty member.
The Regulations are intended to regulate career progression and not recruitment. The reference to “direct recruitment” in the Regulations is confined to determining the entry point of existing faculty into the CAS framework. Mechanisms such as the Academic Performance Index and evaluation matrices presuppose accumulated service records, teaching experience, and research output within an institution, making them inapplicable to candidates outside the academic system.
While AICTE, as the apex regulatory authority, lays down uniform national standards that generally prevail over inconsistent State norms, the Regulations in question are not recruitment rules. They are designed to facilitate career advancement, not initial appointment.
Applying these Regulations to State-conducted direct recruitment for Professors would distort their purpose. Consequently, the AICTE Regulations and State Recruitment Rules operate in distinct domains, and neither supersedes the other.
The Court stated:
“The Regulations are not Recruitment Rules but are Promotion and Progression Rules… The provisions of the Regulations, therefore, cannot logically apply to a person who is not yet a part of that system.”
The Court clarified that the candidate was merely an aspirant in an open competitive recruitment, not an incumbent seeking advancement under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).
The Bench remarked:
“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.”
Final Order of the Court:
The Court reiterated the established legal principle regarding candidates who challenge selection criteria after participating.
Citing the case of Anupal Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 173, the Court held:
“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 unsuccessful.”
The Bench concluded that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in ruling that the candidate could not be barred from challenging the process.
Case Title: Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah & Ors.SLP (C) No.27710 of 2025
Read Attachment: