The Supreme Court has held 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 conducted under State Rules. The Court observed that regulations designed for career advancement cannot be applied to open competitive recruitment.
A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe allowed the appeal filed by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC), setting aside the order of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court which had invalidated the selection process for the post of Professor.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from an advertisement issued 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). The recruitment was governed by the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012 (“State Rules”). The selection criteria prescribed assessment based on a personal interview.
The respondent candidate applied for the post and appeared for the interview on December 17, 2015. While the minimum qualifying marks for the female unreserved category were 45 out of 100, the candidate secured only 28 marks and was not recommended for selection.
After being declared unsuccessful, the candidate challenged the selection process, invoking the AICTE Regulations, 2012. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on November 25, 2024, holding that the candidate was bound by the advertisement and had participated without protest. However, on appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, by an order dated August 20, 2025, set aside the Single Judge’s order. The Division Bench held that AICTE Regulations govern even direct recruitment and that the Commission’s interview-based process violated said regulations.
Arguments
The appellant (GPSC) argued that the Division Bench erred in applying AICTE Regulations to the recruitment process. It was contended that the advertisement clearly prescribed suitability assessment via interview, and the candidate, having participated in the selection process, was estopped from challenging it.
The respondent contended that AICTE Regulations, framed under a Central Act, prevail over State Rules. It was argued that the candidate’s fundamental rights under Article 16 were violated and that the principle of estoppel should not apply.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Alok Aradhe, writing for the Bench, analyzed the “architecture” of the AICTE Regulations, 2012. The Court noted that these regulations are titled “Career Advancement Scheme” and primarily deal with the promotion of incumbent Assistant Professors and Associate Professors.
The Court observed:
“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 an aspirant in an open competitive recruitment and not an incumbent seeking promotion 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.”
On the Issue of Estoppel
The Court reiterated the settled legal principle regarding candidates challenging selection criteria after participation. Citing the precedent in 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 held that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in ruling that the candidate was not precluded from challenging the process.
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the AICTE Regulations and State Rules operate in different fields, and thus the question of one superseding the other did not arise. The Court allowed the appeal and upheld the recruitment conducted by the Commission in pursuance of the 2015 advertisement.
The Court noted:
“A recruitment concluded in 2015 cannot be reopened in 2025, on the basis of the Regulations that never applied to it.”
The impugned order of the Division Bench dated August 20, 2025, was quashed and set aside.
Case Details:
Case Title: Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@SLP (C) No. 27710 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
