In a significant judgment impacting higher education recruitment in Punjab, the Supreme Court on Monday set aside the appointment of 1,158 assistant professors and librarians, slamming the process as riddled with “total arbitrariness” and lacking essential safeguards for assessing academic merit.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran quashed a September 2024 verdict by the Punjab and Haryana High Court division bench, which had upheld the state’s recruitment process. The appointments, announced ahead of the 2022 assembly elections, were challenged by several candidates who alleged grave irregularities in the merit-based selection.
The top court observed that the state could not shield such arbitrary actions under the pretext of policy decisions. “We have to keep in mind that these were posts of assistant professors, for which the University Grants Commission (UGC) has prescribed a rigorous selection process,” the bench noted. This includes evaluation of academic credentials, a viva-voce, and other qualitative assessments — all of which were allegedly bypassed.
Criticizing the process, the court pointed out that “a simple multiple-choice based written exam cannot be sufficient to test the suitability of a candidate for a teaching post.” The bench emphasized that replacing a time-tested procedure with a hastily implemented method without proper deliberation was not only arbitrary but legally untenable.
It further noted that the exclusion of viva-voce — a crucial component to gauge a candidate’s teaching aptitude — was a “grave error,” leading to a lack of qualitative evaluation. “The written test did not challenge the innovative faculty of a candidate,” the court said, underlining that such objective tests fell short of measuring the necessary intellectual depth for higher education roles.
The court also flagged concerns over “executive hegemony,” stating that reversing a decision of the council of ministers without its consultation undermined constitutional governance.
Reinforcing the importance of fairness and transparency in public appointments, the court cited established principles: “Any decision taken by the State must be reasoned, and not arbitrary. When a thing is done in a posthaste manner, mala fides would be presumed.”
It echoed the observations of the High Court’s single-judge bench, which had earlier raised doubts about the impartiality of the selectors, especially given the political and administrative pressure to fill the posts swiftly.
