SC quashes Punjab’s mass recruitment over flawed selection process. Court slams removal of viva and arbitrary MCQ-only test.
New Delhi: Today, on July 14, in a major decision, the Supreme Court on Monday cancelled the appointment of 1,158 assistant professors and librarians in Punjab, calling the recruitment process “totally arbitrary.”
The court said the selection procedure was not fair, lacked transparency, and went against established norms for hiring teachers in higher education.
A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran overturned the earlier ruling given by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in September 2024, which had supported the appointments.
This Supreme Court decision came after several candidates filed legal petitions, raising serious questions about how the recruitment was handled.
The process began in October 2021 when the Punjab Director of Higher Education issued a public notification asking for online applications for assistant professor posts in various subjects, as well as for librarian positions.
This recruitment drive happened just before the Punjab Assembly elections. But it was later challenged in court by many candidates who alleged that there were major irregularities in the merit-based selection process.
The Supreme Court strongly criticised the way the appointments were made. It said the state government cannot defend such a flawed and arbitrary process by calling it a policy decision.
The court observed,
“We have to keep in mind that these were the posts of assistant professors for which a specialised body like UGC has prescribed a process for the selections, which includes appreciation of academic work of a candidate, his/her performance in viva-voce, amongst others.”
The court made it clear that selecting teachers by only using a multiple-choice question (MCQ) based written test is not enough to judge whether someone is fit to teach at the college or university level.
It said,
“Just a simple multiple-choice question 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.”
The Bench further said that even if the court tried to ignore political motives behind the change in recruitment, it could not ignore how the executive (government officials) overruled the earlier decision of the council of ministers without even consulting them.
This, the court said, was unacceptable. It added,
“It also undermines the quality of selection, since there was no comprehensive exercise to examine the merit of a candidate. The written test did not challenge the innovative faculty of a candidate.”
ALSO READ: “Tainted Candidates Can’t Reapply”: Calcutta HC Cracks Down on 2016 SSC Scam
The court also pointed out that the MCQ-based test did not require candidates to explain their thoughts or write detailed answers. It noted,
“The top court noted one was not required to give an elaborate answer to a question akin to a subjective type of test. Instead, it was an objective type of test in which the correct answer was to be given from multiple-choice of answers.”
One of the most critical flaws in the selection process, according to the court, was the removal of the viva-voce (oral interview), which is a key part of assessing a candidate’s teaching ability. The court said,
“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, was another grave error.”
The judges also mentioned that the recruitment process seemed rushed and that this urgency was used as an excuse to avoid a full assessment of candidates. This, in turn, affected the quality of the final selection.
The court said that the authorities seemed more focused on quickly finishing the recruitment rather than ensuring that qualified and deserving people were hired. It said this was not acceptable for hiring teachers who shape young minds in colleges and universities.
The Supreme Court appreciated the single judge of the High Court who had earlier expressed doubts about the fairness of the selection process.
It noted that the High Court judge had rightly found that the process raised “serious doubts” about the fairness and impartiality of those who were responsible for conducting the recruitment.
These officials, the court said, were likely under pressure to complete the process quickly without paying enough attention to quality.
Emphasising the importance of fairness and transparency in government jobs, the court reminded that all actions of the government must follow proper reasoning and should not be done in haste.
It stated,
“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.”
In its concluding observation, the Supreme Court underlined the importance of merit, fairness, and impartiality in selecting public servants. It stressed that this is necessary for any democratic country.
The court stated,
“Impartiality, fairness and recognition of merit while selecting public servants are absolutely necessary in modern democracies.”
This judgment is likely to have a major impact on public recruitment across states, especially for teaching positions in higher education, as it reinforces the need for a detailed, fair, and well-structured selection process.
CASE TITLE:
Mandeep Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others.
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On SSC
