Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 70
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) No.27710 of 2025)
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION … APPELLANT
Versus
GNANESHWARY DUSHYANTKUMAR
SHAH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ALOK ARADHE, J.
Leave granted.
2.
The present appeal filed by Gujarat State Public Service
Commission (Commission), assails an order dated 20.08.2025
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in a
Letters Patent Appeal. By the aforesaid order, the Division Bench
has set aside the order dated 25.11.2024 of the learned Single
Judge by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.1
(candidate) seeking appointment to the post of Professor (Plastic
Engineering) was dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The undisputed facts are that an advertisement was issued on
Signature Not Verified
23.09.2015 by the Commission for recruitment to seven posts of
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.01.19
13:39:13 IST
Reason:
Professors in various disciplines including one post of Professor
1
(Plastic Engineering) in Government Engineering Colleges in the
State of Gujarat. The candidate applied for the post of Professor
(Plastic Engineering). The recruitment was conducted under the
Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012
(hereinafter, referred to as the “State Rules”), framed by the State
Government and in accordance with general guidelines for the
advertisement. Clauses 15(7), 15(8) and 15(9) prescribe for the
minimum selection criteria, whereas Clause 16(1) of aforesaid
general guidelines provide for assessment on the basis of
personal interview.
4. The candidate did not challenge the advertisement, the
eligibility criteria and method of selection prior to her
participation in the process of selection. The candidate
participated in the interview held on 17.12.2015. The minimum
qualifying marks prescribed for female candidates of unreserved
category was 45 marks out of 100 marks. The candidate secured
28 marks only and was, therefore, not recommended by the
Commission, for selection.
5. The candidate, after being declared unsuccessful in the
interview, for the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering), invoked
the All India Council for Technical Education (Career
2
Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff
in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012 (“AICTE
Regulations”), to challenge the process of selection for the post in
question in a writ petition. The candidate also sought a direction
to the Commission to offer her the post of Professor (Plastic
Engineering).
6. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 25.11.2024 inter
alia held that the candidate is bound by Clause 3 of the
advertisement and Clause 15 of general guidelines for
advertisement which provided for selection on the basis of an
interview. It was further held that the candidate participated in
the process of selection without any protest. It was also held that
the decision with regard to her suitability for the post in
question, has been taken by a Committee of experts, with which
no interference is called for in exercise of the powers of judicial
review. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved, the candidate preferred an appeal. The
Division Bench in its order dated 20.08.2025, inter alia held that
the AICTE Regulations govern even the direct recruitment to the
post of a Professor in Government Engineering Colleges in the
State and the Commission’s interview-based process for selection
3
is in violation of the AICTE Regulations. On the aforesaid
premise, the entire selection process for the post in question was
invalidated. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned
Single Judge and issued following directions to the commission:
(i) The Commission for constitution of the selection
committee and qua the evaluation of performance of the
respondent, shall adhere to AICTE Regulations.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The result of the selection shall be duly prepared
immediately, at the most, on the very next day of the
selection.
(iv) 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.
(v) The question of grant of other reliefs prayed by the
respondent, shall be subject to result of the selection.
In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal arises for our
consideration.
4
SUBMISSIONS
8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Division Bench erred in applying AICTE Regulations to the
recruitment process in question. It is further submitted that
advertisement clearly prescribed that the suitability of a
candidate shall be assessed on the basis of an interview. It is
contended that candidate having participated in the process of
Selection was not entitled to challenge the same.
9. On the other hand, attorney of candidate submitted that the
order passed by the Division Bench is legally unimpeachable. It is
further submitted that the AICTE Regulations framed under the
Act, enacted by the Parliament, prevail over the rules framed by
the State Government. It is contended that the principle of
estoppel cannot be invoked against the candidate. It is urged that
the candidate is highly qualified and her Fundamental Right
under Article 16 is violated. Lastly, it is contended that no
interference in this Appeal is called for.
5
ISSUE
10. The pivotal issue involved in this appeal is 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.
ANALYSIS
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions and have carefully perused the records. The answer
to the issue is found not merely in text of the Regulations but in
the very architecture of the Regulations. Section 23(1) of the All
India Council for Teachers Education Act, 1987 (Act) empowers
the AICTE to frame Regulations, not inconsistent with the
provisions of the Act and the Rules and generally to carry out the
purposes of the Act. Section 10 of the Act deals with functions of
the Council. Section 10 (i) of the Act mandates the Council to lay
down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and
instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality
instructions, assessment and examinations. Section 10 (v)
empowers the Council to perform such functions as may be
prescribed. In exercise of the aforesaid powers namely, Section
6
23(1) read with Section 10 (i) and (v) of the Act, the AICTE on
08.11.2012, has framed AICTE Regulations.
12. The salient features of the aforesaid Regulations, which are
relevant for the determination of issue involved in this appeal, are
as under: -
(i) The Regulations are titled as All India Council for
Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for the
Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical
Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012.
(ii) Regulation 2.5 provides that CAS promotions from a
lower grade to a higher grade of Assistant
Professor/Associate Professor shall be conducted by a
“Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee” adhering to the
criteria laid out as API score in Performance Based
Appraisal System (PBAS) in the Tables of Appendix I.
(iii) Regulation 3 deals with stages of promotions under
career advancement scheme of incumbent and newly
appointed Assistant Professors / Associate Professors /
Professors.
(iv) Regulation 3.9 provides that Assistant Professor
completing three years of service in stage 4 and possessing
7
a Ph.D Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to
be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in
the next higher grade of Rs.10,000 (Stage 5) subject to
following:
(a) Satisfying the required credit points
as per API based PBAS requirements
as provided in Tables of Appendix 1;
and
(b) An assessment by a duly constituted
selection committee as suggested for
the direct recruitment of Professor.
Provided that no teacher other than
those with a Ph.D shall be promoted
or appointed as Professor.
(v) Regulation 6 deals with counting of past services for
direct recruitment and promotion under the Career
Advancement Scheme.
(vi) Table-II (c), which is part of Appendix-I to the
Regulations, prescribes for minimum score of Academic
Performance Index and constitution of Selection Committee
Criteria Weightages, for Assistant Professor/equivalent
cadres (stage 1), Associate Professor/equivalent cadres
(stage 4), and Professor/equivalent cadres (stage 5).
8
13. Thus, from careful scrutiny of the aforesaid Regulations in
entirety, it is axiomatic that the Regulations provides for stages of
promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme of incumbent
and newly appointed Assistant Professors/Associate
Professors/Professors. 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.
9
14. The candidate was an aspirant in an open competitive
recruitment conducted under the State Rules by the
Commission. The candidate was neither an incumbent Professor
nor a newly appointed Professor. She was not even Career
Advancement Scheme candidate. The reliance placed on Table-
II(C) to Appendix-I of the AICTE Regulations is misconceived, as
the same provides the criteria for grant of benefit under the
Career Advancement Scheme to Professor (stage 5). The
candidate is neither a Professor (stage 4) nor an aspirant for
promotion as Professor (stage 5) under Career Advancement
Scheme.
15. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the AICTE,
as apex statutory authority in the field of technical education,
lays down uniform norms and standards and that its regulations,
particularly those concerning qualifications, academic standards
and quality control, ordinarily prevail over inconsistent State
prescriptions, so as to ensure national coherence and excellence
in technical education. However, 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
10
regulations are designed to advance a career, not to initiate one
at a particular rung. 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, which is the subject
matter of this appeal. The issue is answered accordingly.
16. The AICTE Regulations and State Rules operate in different
field, therefore, the question of one superseding the other does
not arise. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the
candidate that qualification prescribed by the State Government,
for the post of Professor is contrary to the AICTE Regulations but
the grievance of the candidate is qua the evaluation of criteria of
performance of the candidates.
17. The Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in
assuming that the AICTE Regulations override the State
Recruitment Rules in the matter of initial appointment. The Act
does not empower the AICTE, to abolish the State Rules for
11
recruitment in Government Colleges, but empowers it to ensure
standard of education and service conditions, particularly for
career progression.
18.
There is yet another fatal infirmity in the challenge to
selection process at the behest of the candidate. The criteria for
interview and qualifying marks were expressly stated. The
candidate applied, appeared and took her chance. Only after
being declared unsuccessful, did she seek to invoke an entirely
different regulatory regime. 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
1
declared unsuccessful . The Division Bench of the High Court
erred in holding that the candidate was not precluded from
challenging the process of selection.
19. We must, however, take note of the fact that though the
records indicate substantial research credentials, international
publications and technical expertise on the part of the candidate.
Yet, the fact remains that the courts do not make appointments.
A recruitment concluded in 2015 cannot be reopened in 2025, on
the basis of the Regulations that never applied to it.
1
ANUPAL SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2020) 2 SCC 173
12
CONCLUSION
20. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated
20.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court,
cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The
recruitment conducted by the Commission in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 23.09.2015 is upheld. In the result, the
appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
…………. ……………….………….………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
.…………..…….……………….……..….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 19, 2026.
13
2026 INSC 70
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (C) No.27710 of 2025)
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION … APPELLANT
Versus
GNANESHWARY DUSHYANTKUMAR
SHAH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ALOK ARADHE, J.
Leave granted.
2.
The present appeal filed by Gujarat State Public Service
Commission (Commission), assails an order dated 20.08.2025
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in a
Letters Patent Appeal. By the aforesaid order, the Division Bench
has set aside the order dated 25.11.2024 of the learned Single
Judge by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.1
(candidate) seeking appointment to the post of Professor (Plastic
Engineering) was dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The undisputed facts are that an advertisement was issued on
Signature Not Verified
23.09.2015 by the Commission for recruitment to seven posts of
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.01.19
13:39:13 IST
Reason:
Professors in various disciplines including one post of Professor
1
(Plastic Engineering) in Government Engineering Colleges in the
State of Gujarat. The candidate applied for the post of Professor
(Plastic Engineering). The recruitment was conducted under the
Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012
(hereinafter, referred to as the “State Rules”), framed by the State
Government and in accordance with general guidelines for the
advertisement. Clauses 15(7), 15(8) and 15(9) prescribe for the
minimum selection criteria, whereas Clause 16(1) of aforesaid
general guidelines provide for assessment on the basis of
personal interview.
4. The candidate did not challenge the advertisement, the
eligibility criteria and method of selection prior to her
participation in the process of selection. The candidate
participated in the interview held on 17.12.2015. The minimum
qualifying marks prescribed for female candidates of unreserved
category was 45 marks out of 100 marks. The candidate secured
28 marks only and was, therefore, not recommended by the
Commission, for selection.
5. The candidate, after being declared unsuccessful in the
interview, for the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering), invoked
the All India Council for Technical Education (Career
2
Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff
in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012 (“AICTE
Regulations”), to challenge the process of selection for the post in
question in a writ petition. The candidate also sought a direction
to the Commission to offer her the post of Professor (Plastic
Engineering).
6. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 25.11.2024 inter
alia held that the candidate is bound by Clause 3 of the
advertisement and Clause 15 of general guidelines for
advertisement which provided for selection on the basis of an
interview. It was further held that the candidate participated in
the process of selection without any protest. It was also held that
the decision with regard to her suitability for the post in
question, has been taken by a Committee of experts, with which
no interference is called for in exercise of the powers of judicial
review. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved, the candidate preferred an appeal. The
Division Bench in its order dated 20.08.2025, inter alia held that
the AICTE Regulations govern even the direct recruitment to the
post of a Professor in Government Engineering Colleges in the
State and the Commission’s interview-based process for selection
3
is in violation of the AICTE Regulations. On the aforesaid
premise, the entire selection process for the post in question was
invalidated. The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned
Single Judge and issued following directions to the commission:
(i) The Commission for constitution of the selection
committee and qua the evaluation of performance of the
respondent, shall adhere to AICTE Regulations.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The result of the selection shall be duly prepared
immediately, at the most, on the very next day of the
selection.
(iv) 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.
(v) The question of grant of other reliefs prayed by the
respondent, shall be subject to result of the selection.
In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal arises for our
consideration.
4
SUBMISSIONS
8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Division Bench erred in applying AICTE Regulations to the
recruitment process in question. It is further submitted that
advertisement clearly prescribed that the suitability of a
candidate shall be assessed on the basis of an interview. It is
contended that candidate having participated in the process of
Selection was not entitled to challenge the same.
9. On the other hand, attorney of candidate submitted that the
order passed by the Division Bench is legally unimpeachable. It is
further submitted that the AICTE Regulations framed under the
Act, enacted by the Parliament, prevail over the rules framed by
the State Government. It is contended that the principle of
estoppel cannot be invoked against the candidate. It is urged that
the candidate is highly qualified and her Fundamental Right
under Article 16 is violated. Lastly, it is contended that no
interference in this Appeal is called for.
5
ISSUE
10. The pivotal issue involved in this appeal is 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.
ANALYSIS
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions and have carefully perused the records. The answer
to the issue is found not merely in text of the Regulations but in
the very architecture of the Regulations. Section 23(1) of the All
India Council for Teachers Education Act, 1987 (Act) empowers
the AICTE to frame Regulations, not inconsistent with the
provisions of the Act and the Rules and generally to carry out the
purposes of the Act. Section 10 of the Act deals with functions of
the Council. Section 10 (i) of the Act mandates the Council to lay
down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and
instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality
instructions, assessment and examinations. Section 10 (v)
empowers the Council to perform such functions as may be
prescribed. In exercise of the aforesaid powers namely, Section
6
23(1) read with Section 10 (i) and (v) of the Act, the AICTE on
08.11.2012, has framed AICTE Regulations.
12. The salient features of the aforesaid Regulations, which are
relevant for the determination of issue involved in this appeal, are
as under: -
(i) The Regulations are titled as All India Council for
Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for the
Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical
Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012.
(ii) Regulation 2.5 provides that CAS promotions from a
lower grade to a higher grade of Assistant
Professor/Associate Professor shall be conducted by a
“Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee” adhering to the
criteria laid out as API score in Performance Based
Appraisal System (PBAS) in the Tables of Appendix I.
(iii) Regulation 3 deals with stages of promotions under
career advancement scheme of incumbent and newly
appointed Assistant Professors / Associate Professors /
Professors.
(iv) Regulation 3.9 provides that Assistant Professor
completing three years of service in stage 4 and possessing
7
a Ph.D Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to
be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in
the next higher grade of Rs.10,000 (Stage 5) subject to
following:
(a) Satisfying the required credit points
as per API based PBAS requirements
as provided in Tables of Appendix 1;
and
(b) An assessment by a duly constituted
selection committee as suggested for
the direct recruitment of Professor.
Provided that no teacher other than
those with a Ph.D shall be promoted
or appointed as Professor.
(v) Regulation 6 deals with counting of past services for
direct recruitment and promotion under the Career
Advancement Scheme.
(vi) Table-II (c), which is part of Appendix-I to the
Regulations, prescribes for minimum score of Academic
Performance Index and constitution of Selection Committee
Criteria Weightages, for Assistant Professor/equivalent
cadres (stage 1), Associate Professor/equivalent cadres
(stage 4), and Professor/equivalent cadres (stage 5).
8
13. Thus, from careful scrutiny of the aforesaid Regulations in
entirety, it is axiomatic that the Regulations provides for stages of
promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme of incumbent
and newly appointed Assistant Professors/Associate
Professors/Professors. 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.
9
14. The candidate was an aspirant in an open competitive
recruitment conducted under the State Rules by the
Commission. The candidate was neither an incumbent Professor
nor a newly appointed Professor. She was not even Career
Advancement Scheme candidate. The reliance placed on Table-
II(C) to Appendix-I of the AICTE Regulations is misconceived, as
the same provides the criteria for grant of benefit under the
Career Advancement Scheme to Professor (stage 5). The
candidate is neither a Professor (stage 4) nor an aspirant for
promotion as Professor (stage 5) under Career Advancement
Scheme.
15. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the AICTE,
as apex statutory authority in the field of technical education,
lays down uniform norms and standards and that its regulations,
particularly those concerning qualifications, academic standards
and quality control, ordinarily prevail over inconsistent State
prescriptions, so as to ensure national coherence and excellence
in technical education. However, 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
10
regulations are designed to advance a career, not to initiate one
at a particular rung. 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, which is the subject
matter of this appeal. The issue is answered accordingly.
16. The AICTE Regulations and State Rules operate in different
field, therefore, the question of one superseding the other does
not arise. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of the
candidate that qualification prescribed by the State Government,
for the post of Professor is contrary to the AICTE Regulations but
the grievance of the candidate is qua the evaluation of criteria of
performance of the candidates.
17. The Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in
assuming that the AICTE Regulations override the State
Recruitment Rules in the matter of initial appointment. The Act
does not empower the AICTE, to abolish the State Rules for
11
recruitment in Government Colleges, but empowers it to ensure
standard of education and service conditions, particularly for
career progression.
18.
There is yet another fatal infirmity in the challenge to
selection process at the behest of the candidate. The criteria for
interview and qualifying marks were expressly stated. The
candidate applied, appeared and took her chance. Only after
being declared unsuccessful, did she seek to invoke an entirely
different regulatory regime. 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
1
declared unsuccessful . The Division Bench of the High Court
erred in holding that the candidate was not precluded from
challenging the process of selection.
19. We must, however, take note of the fact that though the
records indicate substantial research credentials, international
publications and technical expertise on the part of the candidate.
Yet, the fact remains that the courts do not make appointments.
A recruitment concluded in 2015 cannot be reopened in 2025, on
the basis of the Regulations that never applied to it.
1
ANUPAL SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2020) 2 SCC 173
12
CONCLUSION
20. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated
20.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court,
cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The
recruitment conducted by the Commission in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 23.09.2015 is upheld. In the result, the
appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
…………. ……………….………….………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
.…………..…….……………….……..….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 19, 2026.
13