Holding

The recruitment of Assistant Professors and Librarians was illegal as the State failed to consult the PPSC, did not follow the prescribed procedure to withdraw the posts, and arbitrarily deviated from mandatory UGC regulations, rendering the process void.

Summary

The appellants challenged the recruitment of 1,091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians in Punjab Government Degree Colleges, alleging that the State bypassed the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) and ignored UGC regulations. The High Court Division Bench upheld the recruitment, reversing a Single Judge’s order that had quashed the process. The Supreme Court examined whether Article 320(3) of the Constitution mandates consultation with the Commission and whether the State’s retrospective amendment of the 1955 Regulations and adoption of a single MCQ‑based test violated UGC 2010/2018 regulations and the principle of reasonableness under Article 14. The Court held that the posts were within the Commission’s purview, the procedural steps to withdraw them were not followed, and the recruitment method was arbitrary and unlawful. Consequently, the Court set aside the Division Bench’s order, quashed the entire recruitment, and directed the State to conduct fresh recruitment in accordance with the 2018 UGC Regulations. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

The applicability and mandatory nature of Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution regarding consultation with the State Public Service Commission in recruitment.
Whether the retrospective amendment of the Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955, to exclude the posts after recruitment is valid.
The binding effect of UGC Regulations (2010 and 2018) on the State of Punjab and the legality of deviating from them.
Whether the recruitment process adopted (single MCQ test, exclusion of viva‑voce) violates the standards prescribed by UGC and the principle of non‑arbitrariness under Article 14.
The correct procedural mechanism for withdrawing a post from the Commission’s purview under the 1955 Regulations.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.254, s. Art.320(3), s. Art.320(3)(a)
Government of India Act, 1919
Government of India Act, 1935
Public Service Commission (Function) Rules, 1926
Punjab Educational Service (College Cadre) (Class II) Rules, 1976
Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955s. Regulation 20, s. Regulation 21
UGC Act, 1956s. 26(1)(e), s. 26(1)(g)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration The matter pertains to legality of recruitment/selection of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Government Degree colleges of Punjab. The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the findings of the Single Judge and has thereby upheld the selections made by the illegality in the recruitment process. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.320 – Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 – UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and

Subjects

Service LawRecruitment/selection of Assistant Professors and LibrariansDuties and Responsibilities of State and its instrumentalityPublic Service CommissionsDepartmental Selection CommitteeArticle 320(3) & Article 320(3)(a) of ConstitutionDistinction between adoption by incorporation as opposed to referenceDeparture from the standard norms of the recruitment

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 34 : 2025 INSC 834

Mandeep Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 9471 of 2025)
14 July 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The matter pertains to legality of recruitment/selection of Assistant
Professors and Librarians in Government Degree colleges of
Punjab. The Division Bench of the High Court has reversed the
findings of the Single Judge and has thereby upheld the selections
made by the State. Whether there is a gross illegality in the
recruitment process.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.320 – Punjab Public Service
Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 – UGC
(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures
for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education)
Regulations, 2010 – Recruitment – Legality of recruitment of
Assistant Professors and Librarians, in Government Degree
Colleges in the State – The Single Judge of the High Court
quashed the entire recruitment process for being in violation
of law inasmuch as the Commission not having been excluded
as per procedure prescribed and State having not followed
the UGC guidelines and adopting an arbitrary process for the
recruitment – In intra-court appeals, vide the impugned order
dated 23.09.2024, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld
the recruitment by quashing the order passed by the Single
Judge of the High Court – Correctness:
Held: In the present case, the State has miserably failed to justify
the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process –
There is a gross illegality in the recruitment process – Art.320(3) of
the Constitution provides that the Commission shall be consulted

* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 35

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

in the recruitment of different services – This Court in Manbodhan
Lal Srivastava, had recognised the importance of Regulations
framed under the proviso to Art.320(3) of the Constitution and had
cautioned against the casual bypassing of the Regulations – In the
case at hand, Regulations as contemplated under the Proviso were
already in existence in Punjab known as Punjab Public Service
Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 – The
posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Degree Colleges
were within the purview of the Commission – Thus, selection of
these posts was within the purview of the State Commission, and
it was mandatory that it ought to be consulted – The respondents
have tried to meet this deficiency by stating that the State had
amended the 1955 Regulations in March 2022 (by retrospective
effect), by mentioning these posts in the 1955 Regulations and
these posts were then taken out from the purview of Commission –
However, the amendment was made after concluding the entire
recruitment process and giving appointment letters to the selected
candidates – It was hence a post facto exercise – The 1955
Regulations prescribed a procedure under which posts within the
purview of the Commission could be withdrawn – It is admitted that
in the present case the required procedure was not followed – In
case the State government was dissatisfied with the manner in
which the Commission was conducting the recruitment ought to
have followed the due procedure and withdrawn the posts from
the purview of the Commission in accordance with the 1955
Regulations – As far as UGC Regulations are concerned, a method
of selection to these posts is also provided in the 2010 UGC
Regulations which has not been followed in the present case –
Besides that, there are multiple deficiencies – The giving away of
a rigorous criteria laid down in the UGC regulations with a single,
multiple-choice question based written test, and the complete
elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary nature of
the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness laid
down u/Art.14 of the Constitution – Hence, the Single Judge had
rightly struck down the entire selection process, and the Division
Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with that conclusion.
[Paras 9, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 40, 56, 59, 60]

UGC Act, 1956 – UGC Regulations of 2010 – UGC Regulations
2018 – The distinction between adoption by incorporation as
opposed to reference – Discussed:
36 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Held: The distinction here is that in case of adoption by incorporation,
the subsequent amendment or repeal of the incorporated statute
will be of no consequences on the incorporation – The adoption
then becomes frozen at the point in time when the incorporation
was made – But the question whether a provision of law is adopted
by reference or incorporation also depends upon the language of
the order/statute in which such provision is being adopted – It may
also depend upon the conduct of the State and how it has been
recognised and accepted in that State – 2018 UGC Regulations
may have repealed the 2010 UGC Regulations but still they were
being considered and recognised in the State of Punjab for all
purposes, even after its repeal – In the instant case, this Court
has already referred the order dated 30.07.2013 whereby the
State Government had adopted 2010 Regulations and the reasons
assigned by the State Government in doing so which was to uplift
the standard of higher education. [Para 38]

Constitution of India – Art.320(3) – Art.320(3)(a) – Nature and
Scope:
Held: Art.320(3) speaks of a variety of matters where the
Commission is to be consulted- (a) Recruitment in Service and
(c) disciplinary matters, being two such instances – Whereas
Art.320(3)(c) is generally concerned with individual matters relating
to disciplinary proceedings, Art.320(3)(a) deals with policy issues
where an entire recruitment process is at stake. [Para 20]

Constitution of India – Art.14 – Duties and Responsibilities of
State and its instrumentality:
Held: The State and its instrumentalities have a duty and
responsibility to act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate
of Art.14 of the Constitution – 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 the
present case there are multiple deficiencies, as stated above – The
giving away of a rigorous criteria laid down in the UGC regulations
with a single, multiple-choice question based written test, and the
complete elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary
nature of the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 37

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

laid down under Art.14 of the Constitution – Hence, the Single
Judge had rightly struck down the entire selection process, and
the Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with that
conclusion. [Paras 52, 56]
Public Service Commissions – Purpose, Role and Evolution
in India – Discussed. [Paras 8-16]

Case Law Cited
Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala [2023] 11 SCR 674 :
(2024) 3 SCC 799 – followed.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India [1979] 2 SCR 1038 :
(1979) 2 SCC 529; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India [1979] 3 SCR 1014 : (1979) 3 SCC 489;
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat [2022] 4 SCR 406 :
(2022) 5 SCC 179; State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational &
Research Institute [1995] 2 SCR 1075 : (1995) 4 SCC 104; Fuljit
Kaur v. State of Punjab [2010] 7 SCR 317 : (2010) 11 SCC 455;
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia [2003]
Supp. 6 SCR 1023 : (2004) 2 SCC 65; Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra [2009] 14 SCR 403 : (2009) 10 SCC 388;
Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 264 :
(2005) 1 SCC 625 – relied on.

State of U.P v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava [1958] 1 SCR 533 :
1957 SCC OnLine SC 4; Kalyani Mathivanan v. KV Jeyaraj & Ors.
[2015] 3 SCR 467: (2015) 6 SCC 363; Cherukuri Mani v. Chief
Secretary, Govt of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [2014] 6 SCR 750 :
(2015) 13 SCC 722; Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu [2023]
11 SCR 150 : (2023) 10 SCC 461; Babu Verghese & Ors. v. Bar
Council of India & Ors. [1999] 1 SCR 1121 : (1999) 3 SCC 422 –
referred to.

Nazir Ahmed v. King-Emperor (LR 63 IA 372) – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
Dr. Naresh Chandra Roy, The Working of the Public Service
Commission in Bengal, Indian Political Science Conference, Third
Session, Mysore, Dec 1940, p.192; Macaulay Committee Report;
Lee Commission in its report of 1924; Simon Commission Report.
38 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Government of India Act, 1919; Public Service
Commission (Function) Rules, 1926; Government of India Act, 1935;
UGC Act, 1956; Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of
Functions) Regulations, 1955; UGC (Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities
and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education) Regulations, 2010; UGC Regulations, 2018;
Punjab Educational Service (College Cadre) (Class II) Rules, 1976.

List of Keywords
Service Law; Recruitment/selection of Assistant Professors and
Librarians; Duties and Responsibilities of State and its instrumentality;
Public Service Commissions; Departmental Selection Committee;
Article 320(3) & Article 320(3)(a) of Constitution; Distinction between
adoption by incorporation as opposed to reference; Departure from
the standard norms of the recruitment.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9471 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2024 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 89 of 2023
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 9472 and 9473 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mrs. Rekha Palli, Sr. Adv., Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Adv, Nidhesh
Gupta, Sr. Adv., Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Chritarth Palli,
Vivek Sharma, Rajat Gupta, Mrs. Harsheen Madan Palli, Agam
Aggarwal, Karan Dewan, Miss Aanchal Jain, Ms. Anindita Mitra,
Vivek Sharma, Rajiv Sethi, Ms. Aditi Gupta.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shadan Farasat, Sr.Adv./A.A.G., Vivek Jain, A.A.G., Kapil Sibal,
Rakesh Dwivedi, Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Advs., Vikrant
Pachnanda, Avinit Avasthi, Rishabh Parikh, Mukul Katyal, Yasir
Saifi, Talha Abdul Rahman, M Shaz Khan, Sudhanshu Tewari, Rafid
Akhter, Faizan Ahmad, Mohit D. Ram, Anup Jain, Ms. Nayan Gupta.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 39

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants before this Court have challenged the judgment dated
23.09.2024, of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High
Court which has reversed the findings of the learned Single Judge
and has thereby upheld the selections made by the State of Punjab
for the posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Government
Degree colleges of Punjab.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
a. In January 2021, the State of Punjab had sent separate requisitions
to the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Commission’), for recruitment of 931 Assistant Professors
(dated 15.01.2021) and 50 Librarians (dated 29.01.2021), in
Government Degree Colleges in the State. Consequent to this
and based on correspondences exchanged, the Commission
engaged 24 subject experts to prepare the syllabus for the
competitive examinations and honorarium was paid to them.
b. Later, an additional 160 posts of Assistant Professors and
17 posts for Librarians were created and sanctioned for
newly established colleges, and on 15.09.2021, the State’s
Department of Higher Education (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Department’) sought Commission’s consent to fill these
posts through the Departmental Selection Committee rather
than the Commission.
c. The Commission replied by letter dated 16.09.2021, expressing
their inability to respond on the ground of the Chairman having
retired and the new appointment having not taken place. The
Government then by a memorandum dated 17.09.2021 approved
the recruitment of 160 and 17 posts of Assistant Professors
and Librarians respectively, through Departmental Selection
Committees which though had to follow the University Grants
Commission (hereinafter ‘UGC’) guidelines or regulations.
40 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

d. A change in Government happened on 20.09.2021 after which
on 09.10.2021, the selection process was reviewed in a meeting
chaired by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education. In
this meeting, the entire process of recruitment was changed
and it was decided that selection would now be made only
on the basis of a Written Test, which will be conducted by
two separate selection committees of two State Universities:
(a) Punjab University, Patiala, and (b) the Guru Nanak Dev
University, Amritsar. Further, it was decided that all the 1091
posts (931 plus 160 posts) of Assistant Professors and 67 posts
(50 plus 17 posts) of Librarians; and not just the posts recently
created, are to be filled through these departmental selection
committees. This decision was placed for approval before the
Chief Minister on 12.10.2021, with the observation that it shall
subsequently be placed for approval before the Council of
Ministers; latter approval was never obtained.
e. On 18.10.2021, Government issued a memorandum conveying
to Director Public Instructions (Colleges) (hereinafter ‘DPI’) the
decision for recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67
Librarians on the basis of two departmental selection committees
of two State Universities. On 19.10.2021, advertisements for
the above posts were issued.
f. In a little over a month, the exam was conducted and the
result was announced on 28.11.2021. Meanwhile, in the first
week of November, Writ Petitions were filed before the High
Court, challenging the memorandum dated 18.10.2021 and
advertisements dated 19.10.2021. On 26.11.2021 in CWP No.
22446 of 2021, before the results were published, while issuing
notice, it was clarified that the selection shall be subject to the
result of the writ petition.
g. Vide order dated 08.08.2022, the learned Single Judge allowed
the Writ Petitions and quashed the entire recruitment process
for being in violation of law inasmuch as the Commission not
having been excluded as per procedure prescribed and State
having not followed the UGC guidelines and adopting an arbitrary
process for the recruitment.
h. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the State of
Punjab as well as the candidates who were selected/appointed
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 41

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

filed intra-court appeals. Vide the impugned order dated
23.09.2024, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed these
intra-court appeals and upheld the recruitment by quashing the
order passed by the learned Single Judge. Assailing the same,
appellants are before us.
4. Before the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench as well as
before this Court, the appellants’ have been consistent in their
submission that the recruitment process was vitiated on more than
one count. Most importantly the recruitment was made in violation
of UGC Regulations of 2010 (hereinafter ‘2010 UGC Regulations’)
which were adopted by the State of Punjab on 30.07.2013, and
which mandated an entirely different criterion and procedure for
recruitment. Further the selection to these posts ought to have been
made through the Commission, as admittedly these were the posts
within the purview of Commission [under Article 320 of the Constitution
of India read with Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of
Functions) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter ‘the 1955 Regulations’)].
In any case, the entire process is arbitrary and was followed not in
the interest of the State or for the cause of higher education but for
narrow political gains.
5. The State and the private respondents would though argue that Article
320(3) is directory and not mandatory in nature. They would submit
that the State government is empowered to decide its own method
and procedure of recruitment for the posts of Assistant Professors
and Librarians in Degree colleges under the State government; and
it is not bound to make these selections through the Commission.
6. We have heard Senior Advocates Mr. Raju Ramchandran, Mr. Nidhesh
Gupta, Mr. Preetesh Kapur and Mrs. Rekha Palli appearing for the
appellants, and Senior Advocates Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi
and Mr. P.S. Patwalia for the private respondents. We have also
heard Mr. Shadan Farasat, Additional Advocate-General appearing
on behalf of the State of Punjab.
7. It is first necessary to narrate the sequence of events and their
context as this would give us a better perspective. A large number
of posts of Assistant Professor and Librarians in Degree Colleges
remained unfilled for the last 20 years or so in Punjab. The last
selection to these posts was only made in the year 2002, and this
too got into trouble due to allegations of corruption which led to a
42 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

protracted litigation. Later, another recruitment was attempted in
the year 2008 for 265 posts which was again stuck in litigation for
many years. The issue of large unfilled vacancies in Punjab had
come earlier before this Court by the guest/part-time faculties where
a Three-Judge Bench of this Court vide its order dated 02.12.2014
had directed the Commission to fill the sanctioned vacant posts as
soon as possible. The relevant portion of that order reads as under:
“4. We do not intend to keep these Special Leave Petitions
on board. Accordingly, we dispose of the Special Leave
Petitions with an observation that the Punjab Public Service
Commission, Patiala will take all effective steps to fill up
all the sanctioned posts of the lecturers in the State of
Punjab as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
12 months’ time from today.”
The argument of the State is that the main reason for these vacancies
remaining unfilled for all these years was that these posts were within
the purview of the Commission which had failed to fill these posts
and hence the decision taken by the State to remove these posts
from the purview of the Commission and to expedite the process of
selection was in public interest.
8. The Commission has a duty to make selections for different
services in response to the requisition of the State government. In
the present case, in January 2021, the State government had sent
two requisitions for the recruitment of 931 Assistant Professors and
50 Librarians respectively, yet no decision had been taken by the
Commission.
9. Article 320(3) of the Constitution provides that the Commission shall
be consulted in the recruitment of different services. The relevant
portion of Article 320 of the Constitution reads as follows:
“Article 320: Functions of Public Service Commissions-
(1)...
(2)...
(3) The Union Public Service Commission or the State
Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall
be consulted—
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 43

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

(a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment
to civil services and for civil posts;
(b) on the principles to be followed in making
appointments to civil services and posts and in
making promotions and transfers from one service to
another and on the suitability of candidates for such
appointments, promotions or transfers;
(c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person
serving under the Government of India or the
Government of a State in a civil capacity, including
memorials or petitions relating to such matters;
(d) on any claim by or in respect of a person who is
serving or has served under the Government of India
or the Government of a State or under the Crown in
India or under the Government of an Indian State,
in a civil capacity, that any costs incurred by him in
defending legal proceedings instituted against him
in respect of acts done or purporting to be done in
the execution of his duty should be paid out of the
Consolidated Fund of India, or, as the case may be,
out of the Consolidated Fund of the State;
(e) on any claim for the award of a pension in respect
of injuries sustained by a person while serving under
the Government of India or the Government of a State
or under the Crown in India or under the Government
of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, and any question
as to the amount of any such award, and it shall be
the duty of a Public Service Commission to advise
on any matter so referred to them and on any other
matter which the President, or, as the case may be,
the Governor of the State, may refer to them:
Provided that the President as respects the all-India
services and also as respects other services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union, and the Governor,
as respects other services and posts in connection with
the affairs of a State, may make regulations specifying
the matters in which either generally, or in any particular
44 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

class of case or in any particular circumstances, it shall
not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be
consulted.”
Public Service Commission at the Union and at the State levels are
constitutional bodies. There is a purpose for which these institutions
have been created, which we shall discuss in a while. All the same,
it is not necessary that all posts in the States or Union must be filled
through Commission. It is not mandatory. But there is a method
prescribed under the law to take out these posts from the purview
of the Commission. This has been violated in the present case; is
the argument. But first, for the role of the Commission.
10. Impartiality, fairness and recognition of merit while selecting Public
Servants are absolutely necessary in modern democracies. The basic
purpose of a Union Public Service Commission or State Public Service
Commission(s) for that matter, is to remove impartiality and political
influence while making selection on Public Posts. It is necessary to
have an impartial Public Service Commission in a Democracy, or
everything will be reduced to a mere scramble for jobs1. The concept
is not new. It goes back to the Government of India Act, 1919, and
even earlier to the pre 1857 era. The East India Company, which
had under its administration a vast area, felt the need to replace
the system based on recommendations and nominations to a merit-
based system, which was also the recommendation of the Macaulay
Committee Report2. A Civil Service Commission was then established
in 1854 to conduct competitive examinations which were held for
the first time in the year 1855.
11. It was the Government of India Act, 1919 that formally introduced
the concept of Public Service Commissions in India. Section
96C3 provided for the establishment of a Central Public Service

1 Dr. Naresh Chandra Roy, The Working of the Public Service Commission in Bengal, Indian Political
Science Conference, Third Session, Mysore, Dec 1940, p.192.
2 See Macaulay Report on the Indian Civil Service 1854.
3 Section 96C: Public Service Commission- (1) There shall be established in India a public service
commission, consisting of not more than five members, of whom one shall be chairman, appointed by
the Secretary of State in Council. Each member shall be removed before the expiry of his term of office,
except by order of the Secretary of State in Council. The qualifications for the appointment, and the pay
and pension (if any) attaching to the office of chairman and member, shall be prescribed by rules made
by the Secretary of State in Council.
(2) The public service commission shall discharge, in regard to recruitment and control of the public services
in India, such functions as may be assigned thereto by rules made by the Secretary of State in Council
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 45

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Commission in India. But the Public Service Commission was not set
up immediately till its need was emphasized by the Lee Commission
in its report of 1924:
“Wherever democratic institutions exist, experience has
shown that to secure an efficient Civil Service it is essential
to protect it so far as possible from political or personal
influences and to give it that position of stability and security
which is vital to its successful working as the impartial and
efficient instrument by which Governments, of whatever
political complexion, may give effect to their policies. In
countries where this principle has been neglected, and
where the “spoils system” has taken place, an inefficient
and disorganized Civil Service has been the inevitable
result and corruption has been rampant. In America a
Civil Service Commission has been constituted to control
recruitment of the Services, but, for the purposes of
India it is from the Dominions of the British Empire that
more relevant and useful lessons can perhaps be drawn.
Canada, Australia and South Africa now possess Public
or Civil Services Acts regulating the position and control of
the Public Services, and a common feature of them all is
the constitution of a Public Service Commission, to which
the duty of administering the Acts is entrusted. It was this
need which framers of the Government of India Act had
in mind when they made provision in Section 96C for the
establishment of a Public Service Commission to discharge
“in regard to recruitment and control of the Public Services
in India such functions as may be assigned thereto by
rules made by the Secretary of State in Council”. Since the
passing of the Act, a prolonged correspondence, extending
over nearly four years, has been passed between the
Secretary of State, the Government of India, and Local
Governments, regarding the function and machinery
of the body to be set up. No decisions have, however,
been arrived at, and the subject has been referred to this
Commission for consideration”4

4 Report of the Royal Commission on Superior Civil Services in India, dated 27th March, 1924 at pp.13-14
and 16.
46 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

12. It was based on the recommendation of the Lee Commission that
the Commission was formed as contemplated under the Government
of India Act, 1919. The Central Public Service Commission was
thus established in the year 1926, and its functions were governed
by the Public Service Commission (Function) Rules, 1926. Till this
stage, the role of a similar Commission at Provincial level was not
much in discussions.
13. It was only with the Simon Commission Report that we have an official
recommendation for the first time for the setting up of Provincial
Public Service Commissions. It is well-known that the formation of
the Simon Commission was resented by the leaders of the Indian
freedom struggle, primarily because it had no Indian representative,
and because senior officials of the British Raj had questioned the
very ability of Indians to draft a Constitution. In response, an all-party
committee under the chairmanship of Congress stalwart Motilal Nehru
was formed, which was tasked with drafting a Constitution for India.
The report submitted by this committee (which came to be known as
the Nehru Report) also favoured the creation of a Permanent Public
Service Commission to deal with issues such as the recruitment,
appointment, emoluments etc. of civil servants in India.
14. Finally, a Federal Public Service Commission and Public Service
Commissions for Provinces were established under Section 2645 of
the Government of India Act, 1935 and their functions were given in
Section 266, which was pari materia to Article 320 of the Constitution.
15. While the Constituent Assembly was busy in drafting the Constitution
for free India, the Public Service Commission at the Centre and in
some of the States were already functioning.

5 264. Public Service Commission: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Section, there shall be a Public
Service Commission for the Federation and a Public Service Commission for each Province.
(2) Two or more Provinces may agree-
(a) that there shall be one Public Service Commission for that group of Provinces; or
(b) that the Public Service Commission for one of the Provinces shall serve the needs of all the
Provinces,
and any such agreement may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear
necessary or desirable for giving effect to the purposes of the agreement and shall, in the case of an
agreement that there shall be one Commission for a group of Provinces, specify by what Governor or
Governors the functions which are under this Part of this Act to be discharged by the Governor of a
Province are to be discharged.
(3) The Public Service Commission for the Federation, if requested so to do by the Governor of a
Province, may, with the approval of the Governor-General, agree to serve all or any of the needs of the
Province…
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 47

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

16. During discussion on Public Service Commissions in the Constituent
Assembly Debates, Dr. P.S Deshmukh highlighted the purpose and
importance of the Public Service Commissions in these words:
“...these Commissions are said to be a necessity of a
modern State. These Commissions are primarily meant
to keep appointments away from day to day politics,
party preferences and influences and the attempt is
made, by having recourse to these Commissions, that the
appointments shall be as far as possible on merit and there
shall be no interference in their choice or in their selection
from day to day by the executive authorities of the State.”
17. Our entire purpose here of giving this background to the formation
of Public Service Commission in India both at the Union as well as
State level, was to emphasize the purpose for its establishment,
which was to have an impartial and autonomous body which should
select the best possible persons for Government posts, and to have
fairness and transparency in the procedure. The present dispute
which is before this Court reflects this concern.
18. Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution, inter alia, states that the State
Public Service Commission “shall be consulted on all matters relating
to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts”. The
provision appears to be mandatory as the words “shall be consulted”
suggest. All the same, the learned counsel for the respondents would
rely on a 1957 Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of
U.P v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava 1957 SCC OnLine SC 4 which
had laid down that the provision is not mandatory but merely directory.
19. The above decision is binding on us. Yet, we must examine the
context in which the above judgment was rendered. The context
is important. Although the findings in the judgment are generally
worded, this Court in Manbodhan Lal Srivastava was not dealing
with Article 320(3)(a), as is the case before us, but was concerned
with Article 320(3)(c) i.e. a disciplinary matter in an individual case.
In Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, a government servant who was
posted as an officer-on-special-duty in the Education Department
from 1948 to 1951 was accused of giving favours to his friends
and relatives, while working in a Book Selection Committee, as he
had approved books written by his 14 year old nephew and other
publishers from whom he had taken certain money on interest. In
48 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

August 1952, he was suspended from service and a departmental
enquiry was conducted against him. On the recommendations of
the departmental enquiry report, the Government issued a show
cause notice under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and finally,
after hearing the concerned employee, the Government issued a
notification reducing his rank and compulsorily retiring him. These
were the facts of the case before this Court.
20. Article 320(3) speaks of a variety of matters where the Commission
is to be consulted- (a) Recruitment in Service and (c) disciplinary
matters, being two such instances. Whereas Article 320(3)(c) is
generally concerned with individual matters relating to disciplinary
proceedings, Article 320(3)(a) deals with policy issues where an entire
recruitment process is at stake. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, was
a case dealing with Article 320(3)(c), and not with Article 320(3)(a),
which is before us.
21. Another question in Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, was whether Article
311 of the Constitution of India is subject to Article 320(3)(c). Para
4 of the Judgment reads like this:
“Hence, the main question in controversy in Appeal No.
27 of 1955, is whether the High Court was right in taking
the view that Article 311 was subject to the provisions of
Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution, which were mandatory,
and as such, non-compliance with those provisions in the
instant case, was fatal to the proceedings ending with the
order passed by the Government on September 12, 1953.”
22. The judgment also restricts itself to the facts relating to Article
320(3)(c). This is how it concludes :
“13. In view of these considerations, it must be held that
the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) are not mandatory and
that non-compliance with those provisions, does not afford
a cause of action to the respondent in a court of law. It is
not for this Court further to consider what other remedy,
if any, the respondent has. Appeal No. 27 is, therefore,
allowed and Appeal No. 28 dismissed. In view of the fact
that the appellant did not strictly comply with the terms of
Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution, we direct that each
party bear its own costs throughout.”
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 49

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

23. Thus, it was in the background of the above facts that it was held
by this Court that consultation with the Commission to be directory
and not mandatory. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava also emphasized
the purpose of the proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution
which states that the Governor of a State is empowered to make
regulations specifying the matters in which it is not necessary for
the State to consult the Public Service Commission. This is what
was said by this Court:
“7…Perhaps, because of the use of the word “shall”
in several parts of Article 320, the High Court was led
to assume that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) were
mandatory, but in our opinion, there are several cogent
reasons for holding to the contrary. In the first place,
the proviso to Article 320, itself, contemplates that the
President or the Governor, as the case may be, “may
make regulations specifying the matters in which either
generally, or in any particular class of case or in particular
circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service
Commission to be consulted”. The words quoted above
give a clear indication of the intention of the Constitution
makers that they did envisage certain cases or classes of
cases in which the Commission need not be consulted. If
the provisions of Article 320 were of a mandatory character,
the Constitution would not have left it to the discretion of
the Head of the Executive Government to undo those
provisions by making regulations to the contrary. If it had
been intended by the makers of the Constitution that
consultation with the Commission should be mandatory, the
proviso would not have been there, or, at any rate, in the
terms in which it stands. That does not amount to saying
that it is open to the Executive Government, completely
to ignore the existence of the Commission or to pick and
choose cases in which it may or may not be consulted.
Once, relevant regulations have been made, they are
meant to be followed in letter and in spirit and it goes
without saying that consultation with the Commission on
all disciplinary matters affecting a public servant has been
specifically provided for, in order, first, to give an assurance
to the Services that a wholly independent body not directly
50 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

concerned with the making of orders adversely affecting
public servants, has considered the action proposed to
be taken against a particular public servant, with an open
mind; and secondly, to afford the Government unbiased
advice and opinion on matters vitally affecting the morale
of public services. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the
Executive Government, when it proposes to take any
disciplinary action against a public servant, to consult the
Commission as to whether the action proposed to be taken
was justified and was not in excess of the requirements
of the situation.”
(Emphasis Provided)

Thus, even if, for arguments sake, consultation with Commission is
held to be directory then also there is no doubt that once Regulations
are framed these are to be followed, “in letter and spirit”.
24. In other words, this Court in Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, had
recognised the importance of Regulations framed under the proviso
to Article 320(3) of the Constitution and had cautioned against the
casual bypassing of the Regulations. In the case at hand, Regulations
as contemplated under the Proviso were already in existence in
Punjab known as Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation
of Functions) Regulations, 1955. For our purposes, it is relevant
to note that with these Regulations the State had taken out certain
posts outside the purview of the Commission. Admittedly, the posts
of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Degree Colleges were not
amongst them. In other words, these posts were within the purview
of the Commission. Thus, selection of these posts was within the
purview of the State Commission, and it was mandatory that it ought
to be consulted.
25. The respondents have tried to meet this deficiency by stating
that the State had amended the 1955 Regulations in March 2022
(by retrospective effect), by mentioning these posts in the 1955
Regulations and these posts were then taken out from the purview
of Commission. All the same, we are unable to accept this argument
inasmuch as the amendment was made after concluding the entire
recruitment process and giving appointment letters to the selected
candidates. It was hence a post facto exercise. The Government
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 51

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

had already made its selections on the posts which could only have
been done by the Commission under Article 320 of the Constitution
of India.
26. This apart, the 1955 Regulations prescribed a procedure under which
posts within the purview of the Commission could be withdrawn. Part
III-B and Part III-C of the ‘Regulations and Instructions Governing
the Work of the Punjab Public Service Commission’ provide a
procedure for the exclusion of posts/services from the purview of
the Commission. Regulation 20 reads as under:
“20. For exclusion of posts/services and other matters from
the purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission, the
following procedure is to be followed:
(i) Individual proposals for taking out posts from the
purview of the Commission would be processed by
the Administrative Departments concerned. After the
Department had taken a tentative decision to take out
certain posts from the purview of the Commission, the
Department would obtain the views/comments of the Public
Service Commission by making a self-contained reference
to the Commission.
(ii) On receipt of the comments/views of the Commission,
the matter would further be examined by the Department
concerned keeping in view the comments/views so
received and the advice of the Department of Personnel
and Administrative Reforms. If the Department comes
to a definite conclusion that the posts in question must
be taken out of the purview of the Commission, the
Department would take the matter to the Council of
Ministers incorporating the advice of the Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms in the Memorandum
to be placed before the Council of Ministers.
(iii) After the proposal of the Administrative Department
is approved by the Council of Ministers, necessary
action to amend the Punjab Public Service Commission
(Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 would be
taken by the Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms.”
52 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

27. Further, Part III-C of the Regulations provides that in cases where
a difference of opinion between a Department of Government and
Public Service Commission arises then what is to be done. Regulation
21 reads as under:
“21. In order to secure uniformity of practice in cases of
difference of opinion between a Department of Government
and the Commission and to ensure that the Commission
is duly consulted in all cases in which such consultation is
necessary, all cases, in which there is difference of opinion
between a Department and the Commission, should be
referred to the Chief Minister.
22. The procedure for submitting cases to the Chief Minister
should be that whenever as department finds itself unable
to arrive at an agreement with the Commission, the cases
should be sent over to the Chief Secretary on an early
stage, if possible before any decisive action is taken…”
28. It is admitted that in the present case the required procedure was
not followed. In relation to 160 posts of Assistant Professor and 17
posts of Librarians, the Department had sent a reference to take the
posts out of the purview of the Commission, but the Commission
could not take any decision, in the absence of its Chairperson; a post
which remained unfilled for long years. Meanwhile the concerned
department proceeded without the views of the Commission. 931
posts of Assistant Professors and 50 posts of Librarians; admittedly
with the Commission, pending recruitment as requisitioned by the
State itself, and not taken out of the purview of the Commission,
were also added and the advertisement inviting applications for the
posts was issued on 19.10.2021. On the same day, the Department
wrote to Commission to return its requisition sent to Commission for
these posts. The Commission, however, on 16.11.2021 wrote to the
Department disagreeing with the idea of taking the posts out of the
purview of the Commission since the action as required at the end
of the Government was not followed. Without any further action, the
examinations were conducted between 20th to 22nd November, 2022.
29. It was after the selection and appointments were made that
retrospectively on 26.03.2022 an amendment was made taking out
these posts out of the purview of the Commission. The learned Single
Judge has rightly observed that the retrospective amendment to the
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 53

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

1955 Regulations, which was made much after the conclusion of the
recruitment process, was nothing but a response to the Writ Petitions
which had been filed by this time by the appellants. The learned
Single Judge also notes that in the last 30 years, five advertisements
had been issued for filling of posts of Assistant Professors/Lecturers6
and these selections were to be conducted by the Commission. The
State never took the recruitment for these posts in its hands.
30. What was the need to bypass the Commission in the present case?
The learned counsel who appear for the appellants would argue
that a new Government was formed in Punjab in September, 2021
which had to face elections in February, 2022 and the burning hurry
to make selections and appointments to more than 1000 such posts,
on the eve of State elections was an act of political pragmatism,
and nothing more.
31. In case the State government was dissatisfied with the manner in
which the Commission was conducting the recruitment (an argument
which appears to have found favour with the Division Bench), then
it ought to have followed the due procedure and withdrawn the
posts from the purview of the Commission in accordance with the
1955 Regulations. The case at hand is a prime example where
Commission’s role was totally eliminated in the recruitment and well
considered selection parameters, prescribed by an expert body, like
UGC, were replaced with a simple Multiple-Choice Question type test,
which is unheard of where appointments for the posts of Assistant
Professor in degree colleges are concerned.
32. Let us for the moment keep aside the ground of political expediency
and look at what transpired leading to the volte face insofar as the
selection entrusted to the Commission as early as in January 2021.
At the risk of repetition, the decision of the Council of Ministers on
17.09.2021, as approved by the Chief Minister was to take out 160
posts of Assistant Proffesors and 17 posts of Librarians from the
purview of the Commission, which were the freshly created posts in
the newly established Colleges. The selection committee proposed
for the said exercise was also to be Chaired by a Former Chairman
of the UGC. On 20.09.2021, a new Government took over and on
09.10.2021, a committee headed by the Secretary, Department of
Higher Education reviewed the earlier decisions and constituted two

6 Now the posts of Lecturers have been re-designated as Assistant Professors.
54 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

separate Committees, each headed by the Vice-Chancellors of the two
Universities and the selection criteria was confined to a written test.
The proposal was put up before the Chief Minister, with the observation
that it shall subsequently be placed before the Council of Ministers.
Though the Chief Minister accepted the proposal on 13.10.2021, it was
never placed before the Council of Ministers and a Memo was issued
on 18.10.2021 including the entire posts of Assistant Professors and
Librarians available, to be filled up. As noticed above the decision to
remove the said posts from the purview of the Commission was taken
much later, after the selection process stood completed.
33. Let us also understand the scheme of UGC Regulations. Entry 66
of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution empowers Union to
make laws relating to “Co-ordination and determination of standards
in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and
technical institutions”. Under this entry, the Parliament had enacted
the UGC Act, 1956 setting up an expert body named UGC for the
purposes of the Act, which is clear from the Preamble of the UGC
Act which reads as follows:
“An Act to make provision for the co-ordination and
determination of standards in Universities and for that
purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission.”
34. Under provisions of the UGC Act, UGC frames Regulations from
time to time setting qualifications and other standards for teaching
and non-teaching staff. Under Section 26(1)(e) and (g)7, the UGC
(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010
were framed. These Regulations set the minimum eligibility criterion
for the appointment to various posts including Assistant Professors

7 The Commission may, by notification in Official Gazette, make regulations consistent with this Act and
the rules made thereunder-
(a) …
(b) …
…
(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the
teaching staff of the University, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give
instruction.
(f) …
(g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 55

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

and Librarians. A method of selection to these posts is also provided
in the 2010 UGC Regulations which has not been followed in the
present case. To this, the private respondents as well as the State
have taken the stand that these Regulations are directory in nature
and non-compliance of these Regulations would not vitiate the
recruitment.
35. The respondents would place reliance upon Kalyani Mathivanan v.
KV Jeyaraj & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 363 to contend that UGC Regulations
are not binding on the State if the State has not adopted the UGC
Regulations 2018 which were in force at the relevant time, as was
the case here. What were adopted by the State in the present case
were the 2010 UGC Regulations, which stood superseded by this
time by the subsequent Regulations of 2018 of UGC which were
not adopted by the State till the completion of recruitment process.
36. All the same, the adoption of 2010 UGC Regulations by the State
vide order dated 30.07.2013 was an adoption by incorporation and
not an adoption by mere reference. This means that the 2010 UGC
Regulations were in force in the State of Punjab despite its repeal
by the 2018 Regulations by the UGC. This is clear from the intention
and purpose of the order dated 30.07.2013 where it was stated in no
uncertain terms that the 2010 Regulations are being adopted with
a view to raise the standard of Higher Education in the State, with
a specific mention of adoption of API Scores. Now API as we know
means Academic Performance Indicator which is a method used in
Higher Education to assess the quality and merit of teachers in Higher
Education which would include teaching experience and research
and academic contribution, which are extremely relevant factors to
judge the merit of a teacher in Higher Education. The relevant part
of the order dated 30.07.2013 reads as follows:
“With a view to raise the standard of Higher Education in
the State of Punjab, the Notification issued by the U.G.C
dated 30.06.2010 and 14.06.2013 pertaining to governing
the appointment and promotion of Principals/Professors/
Associate Professors/Asst. Professors, the relevant API
scores with modifications mentioned below are ordered
to be applied in the Universities, Govt, aided and private
colleges : -
56 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

1. The term/tenure of the Principal of a private college is
raised from 5 to 10 years.
2. D.P.T. Punjab or his representatives will be associated
with the selection committee constituted for the appointment
of Principals/Asst. Professors (covered under Grant-in-aid
posts) in private colleges.”
37. The distinction between adoption by incorporation as opposed to
reference has been explained by Bhagwati, J., speaking for a three-
judge Bench of this Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union
of India, (1979) 2 SCC 529, in the following terms:
“…It ignores the distinction between a mere reference to
or citation of one statute in another and an incorporation
which in effect means bodily lifting a provision of one
enactment and making it a part of another. Where there
is mere reference to or citation of one enactment in
another without incorporation. Section 8(1) applies and
the repeal and re-enactment of the provision referred
to or cited has the effect set out in that section and the
reference to the provision repealed is required to be
construed as reference to the provision as re-enacted.
Such was the case in Collector of Customs v. Nathella
Sampathu Chetty [AIR 1962 SC 316 : (1962) 3 SCR 786]
and New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector
of Central Excise [(1970) 2 SCC 820 : AIR 1971 SC 454 :
(1971) 2 SCR 92]. But where a provision of one statute is
incorporated in another, the repeal or amendment of the
former does not affect the latter. The effect of incorporation
is as if the provision incorporated were written out in the
incorporating statute and were a part of it. Legislation by
incorporation is a common legislative device employed by
the legislature, where the legislature for convenience of
drafting incorporates provisions from an existing statute by
reference to that statute instead of setting out for itself at
length the provisions which it desires to adopt. Once the
incorporation is made, the provision incorporated becomes
an integral part of the statute in which it is transposed and
thereafter there is no need to refer to the statute from which
the incorporation is made and any subsequent amendment
made in it has no effect on the incorporation statute…”
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 57

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

38. The distinction here is that in case of adoption by incorporation, the
subsequent amendment or repeal of the incorporated statute will be
of no consequences on the incorporation. The adoption then becomes
frozen at the point in time when the incorporation was made. But
the question whether a provision of law is adopted by reference or
incorporation also depends upon the language of the order/statute in
which such provision is being adopted. It may also depend upon the
conduct of the State and how it has been recognised and accepted in
that State. 2018 UGC Regulations may have repealed the 2010 UGC
Regulations but still they were being considered and recognised in
the State of Punjab for all purposes, even after its repeal. We have
already referred above the order dated 30.07.2013 whereby the
State Government had adopted 2010 Regulations and the reasons
assigned by the State Government in doing so which was to uplift
the standard of higher education.
39. Further the memorandum passed by Council of Ministers on
17.09.2021 makes it clear that the State of Punjab was still referring
to the 2010 UGC Regulations irrespective of the fact that 2010
UGC Regulations had been repealed in 2018. In this memorandum,
the Council of Ministers has explicitly mentioned the 2010 UGC
Regulations and also admitted that the 2010 UGC Regulations have
to be followed strictly since they were adopted by the State of Punjab.
The relevant portion of the said memo reads as under:
1.4 The UGC has already notified rules and regulations
for recruitment of Assistant Professors and Librarians in
its notification “UGC Regulation on Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff
in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education” of 2010,
which has been adopted by the Government of Punjab
along with the subsequent amendments.
The Departmental Selection Committee will strictly
follow the guidelines as per above UGC notification for
recruitment of 160 Assistant Professors and 17 Librarians.
The relevant portion of the notification for short listing”/
appointment of candidates to the post of Assistant
Professor and Librarians under the University System
(in University and colleges) in Appendix III Table II-C is
reproduced as under:
58 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Selection a) Academic Record and
Committee Criteria / Research Performance (50%)
Weightage (Total
b) Assessment of Domain
Weightage=100)
Knowledge and Teaching Skills
(30%)
c) Interview Performance (20%)

40. Thus, officially the 2010 UGC Regulations were in force in the State
of Punjab as these were adopted by way of incorporation and not by
reference. The repeal of 2010 Regulations by the UGC Regulations
of 2018 had no impact insofar as applicability of 2010 Regulations
in the State of Punjab was concerned. Also, it is on record that
after the impugned order of the Division Bench, the State adopted
the 2018 UGC Regulations. This shows that the State recognises
the importance of the UGC Regulations. The chief intention of the
G.O. dated 30.07.2013 is that while making selection to the posts
of Assistant Professors API Scores are to be seen. This was the
purpose; which negates a simple objective type test.
41. Doing away with the 2010 Regulations was also a last minute
decision. In January 2021 requisition for recruitment of 931 Assistant
Professors and 50 Librarians was sent by the State government to
the Commission. Then, a meeting of the Council of Ministers was
held on 17.09.2021 in relation to the recruitment of additional 160
posts of Assistant Professors and 17 posts of Librarians which had
come up in 16 new Government Colleges where a decision was
taken to remove these posts from the purview of the Public Service
Commission so that recruitment can be made through a Departmental
Selection Committee, which we have already mentioned above, but
what is significant here is that till this time the Government had all
the intentions of following the 2010 Regulations as the memorandum
dated 17.09.2021 inter-alia states :-
1.4 The UGC has already notified rules and regulations
for recruitment of Assistant Professors and Librarians in
its notification “UGC Regulation on Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff
in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education” of 2010,
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 59

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

which has been adopted by the Government of Punjab
along with the subsequent amendments.
The Departmental Selection Committee will strictly follow
the guidelines as per above UGC notification for recruitment
of 160 Assistant Professors and 17 Librarians. The relevant
portion of the notification for short listing”/appointment of
candidates to the post of Assistant Professor and Librarians
under the University System (in University and colleges)
in Appendix III Table II-C is reproduced as under:

Selection Academic Record and
Committee Criteria / Research Performance (50%)
Weightage (Total
Assessment of Domain
Weightage=100)
Knowledge and Teaching Skills
(30%)
Interview Performance (20%)

(Emphasis provided)

Till 17.09.2021, therefore, the Government had full intentions of
following the 2010 Regulations. The decision earlier was only to
remove the posts out of the purview of Commission.
42. In a more recent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) 5 SCC 179,
it is held that UGC Regulations have a mandatory character and
are binding on all universities, State or Central, that have opted to
receive the financial assistance of the UGC under its Scheme dated
31.12.2008 (which later came to be incorporated as Appendix I of
the 2010 UGC Regulations). In that case, what weighed in the mind
of the Division Bench of this Court was the fact that the concerned
University had availed of the above-mentioned UGC Scheme, and as
part of the same, it had agreed to adhere to UGC regulations (2010
and 2018 regulations, in that case). As a result, the University was
bound to follow the UGC Regulations for the purposes of appointment
of Vice-Chancellors, and it had to amend the relevant rules/statutes to
bring them in line with the UGC Regulations. This is what was said:
“29. It is not in dispute that the SP University is receiving
Central financial assistance under the Scheme and it
60 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

is included in the State Universities receiving Central
financial assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC
Act, 1956. Therefore, having adopted the UGC Scheme
and implemented the same and getting Central financial
assistance to the extent of 80% of the maintenance
expenditure, the State Government and the SP University
are bound by the UGC Regulations, 2010. The UGC
Regulations, 2010 are superseded by the UGC Regulations,
2018. However, the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-
Chancellor and the constitution of the Search Committee
for appointment of a Vice-Chancellor remains the same.
Therefore, the State of Gujarat and the universities
thereunder including the SP University are bound to follow
UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC Regulations, 2018.”
43. It was held that UGC Regulations became a part of the parent Act
i.e. the UGC Act, being a piece of subordinate legislation that is laid
before both Houses of Parliament. As a result, these would prevail in
case there is any inconsistency between State legislation and UGC
regulations, by application of the doctrine of repugnancy:
“50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are
enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections
26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the
UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act,
shall be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore,
being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes
part of the Act. In case of any conflict between the State
legislation and the Central legislation, Central legislation
shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy
as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the
subject “education” is in the Concurrent List (List III) of
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, any
appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions
of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of
the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.”
(Emphasis provided)

44. UGC Regulations are made under UGC Act which was enacted by
Parliament under Entry 66 of List I of the Schedule VII, whereas
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 61

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

State Governments exercise powers under Entry 25 of the List III
of the Schedule VII to make laws relating to “education”. Further, it
is to be noted that Entry 25 of the List III is subject to Entry 66 of
List I. Hence, laws, including the subordinate legislations as in the
present case, made under Entry 66 of the Union List would prevail
over any law made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List.
45. This Court in State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research
Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104 while dealing with Entry 66 and Entry
25 of the Union List and Concurrent List, respectively, observed thus:
“41. What emerges from the above discussion is as follows:
(i) The expression ‘coordination’ used in Entry 66 of the
Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation
with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted
action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of
development. It, therefore, includes action not only for
removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing
the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore,
also include power to do all things which are necessary to
prevent what would make ‘coordination’ either impossible or
difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the
absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given
its full effect according to its plain and express intention.
(ii) To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict
with the Central legislation though the former is purported
to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent
List but in effect encroaches upon legislation including
subordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry
25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of
the Union List, it would be void and inoperative.
(iii) If there is a conflict between the two legislations, unless
the State legislation is saved by the provisions of the main
part of clause (2) of Article 254, the State legislation being
repugnant to the Central legislation, the same would be
inoperative.
(iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of
the Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the
62 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have
to be determined by the examination of the two laws and
will depend upon the facts of each case…”
(Emphasis provided)

46. In short, in the present case the UGC Regulations would be binding
particularly when the State of Punjab vide its order dated 30.07.2013
had adopted 2010 UGC Regulations.
47. We may add here that what also weighed with the Division Bench
of the High Court was the fact that it was the Punjab Educational
Service (College Cadre) (Class II) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter ‘1976
Rules’) which were applicable, and not the UGC Regulations. While
it is true that the 1976 Rules were applicable to the recruitment
but a perusal of the same shows that these only mandate that the
recruitment to posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians should be
through direct recruitment. It does not prescribe any mode or method
of recruitment. This aspect was rightly noticed by the learned Single
Judge. As discussed in detail above, the State of Punjab itself adopted
the standards and process laid down by the UGC. Therefore, it was
bound to follow these Regulations, notwithstanding the 1976 Rules.
48. In short, we find that there is a total arbitrariness in the present
selection. The memo of Council of Ministers dated 17.09.2021
shows that State wanted to recruit only on 160 posts of Assistant
Professors and on 17 posts of Librarians through departmental
selection committee on an urgent basis as these were for the newly
opened colleges. As we have already stated, even in those cases,
the recruitment was to be made by following the UGC Regulations.
Next, the 931 and 50 posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians,
which were lying vacant and in regard to which requisition had already
been sent to Commission, were added and it was decided that the
sole basis of the selection would be a single exam. Moreover, a mere
45-day deadline was set for the commencement and conclusion of
the whole recruitment process and ultimately within a span of two
months, not only was the recruitment process concluded, but even
appointment letters were issued. One cannot fail to notice the burning
haste with which this entire exercise was undertaken by the powers
that be. It has thus been repeatedly pressed by the appellants that all
this was motivated by political exigency in the form of the impending
Assembly elections in the State of Punjab.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 63

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

49. An attempt was made by the State and the private respondents
to argue that the selection process which was ultimately adopted
was in any case better than the one prescribed by the UGC. The
logic given is that a written test would be impartial and will be same
to all, whereas there are always chances of abuse, favouritism,
nepotism, even corruption in a test based on API. Written test is
also less time consuming it was argued. However, we are not at all
convinced with this argument. The recruitment for teaching posts in
higher education on the basis of scores in an objective type written
test, on grounds that such a test is non arbitrary whereas viva voce
and appreciation of other aspects such as academic work could be
abused and could be unfairly applied, is an argument which is puerile
to say the least. Abandoning a time tested and uniformly followed
method of selecting Assistant Professors in higher education with
Multiple-Choice Questions based written examination is unacceptable;
especially when the State itself has adopted the selection process
laid down by the expert body which is also the apex statutory body,
the UGC constituted under Entry 66 in the Union List of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution.
50. The State cannot defend such an arbitrary practice in the garb of a
policy decision. We have to keep in mind that these were the posts
of Assistant Professors for which a specialized 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. 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. Even if we ignore the argument of
political expediency, we cannot but notice the executive hegemony
in reversing a decision of the Council of Ministers, without reference
to the said body. 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. One was not required to give an elaborate answer
to a question as is done in 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. The elimination of the viva-voce,
64 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
51. All this goes on to show that the intention of the authorities was to
conclude the exercise as quickly as possible; which though sought
to be justified on grounds of expediency in filling up the posts,
undermines the selection by reason of no qualitative assessment
of the candidates carried out. The learned Single Judge rightly
observed that this approach casts serious doubts on the fairness
of the process and the impartiality of the selectors, who were likely
to be under pressure to complete the exercise within the timeline,
regardless of the quality of the selections. The selection process is
further impaired by the inclusion of posts already requisitioned to
the Commission, which as per the Regulations were required to be
filled up by the Commission and the apparent deviation from the
UGC Guidelines which were adopted by the State and required to
be followed, in this very selection, by the Council of Ministers.
52. The State and its instrumentalities have a duty and responsibility to
act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution. 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. We may refer here to a
few judgments of this Court which lay down this proposition.
53. In Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2010) 11 SCC 455, this Court
held that any State action undertaken in a hasty manner could be
arbitrary State action cannot be condoned in law. This is what was
said by this Court:
“25. Before parting with the case, it may be pertinent to
mention here that the allotment had been made to the
appellant within 48 hours of submission of her application
though in ordinary cases, it takes about a year. The
appellant had further been favoured to pay the aforesaid
provisional price of Rs. 93,000 in four instalments in
two years, as is evident from the letter dated 8-4-1987.
Making the allotment in such a hasty manner itself is
arbitrary and unreasonable and is hit by Article 14 of the
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 65

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Constitution. This Court has consistently held that “when
a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fides would
be presumed”. Anything done in undue haste can also
be termed as “arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law”.
[Vide S.P. Kapoor (Dr.) v. State of H.P. [(1981) 4 SCC
716 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 14 : AIR 1981 SC 2181], M.P.
Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Devendra Kumar Jain
[(1995) 1 SCC 638 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 364 : (1995) 29
ATC 159], Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai
M. Kamalia [(2004) 2 SCC 65 : AIR 2004 SC 1159] and
ZenitMataplast (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(2009)
10 SCC 388].] Thus, such an allotment in favour of the
appellant is liable to be declared to have been made in
arbitrary and unreasonable manner. However, we are not
inclined to take such drastic steps as the appellant has
developed the land subsequent to allotment.”
(Emphasis provided)

54. In Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia
(2004) 2 SCC 65, this Court reiterated the above principle while
dealing with a case where the change in the office-bearer had
resulted in a hasty and arbitrary change in the policy, which is also
the case here. The relevant observations in the said judgment are
as follows:
“24. The impugned order was preceded by a direction of
the Home Minister on 7-9-1996. A change in the opinion
came into being only upon change in the holder of the
office and that too within a few days. Not only had the
matter not been admittedly placed on the agenda of the
meeting dated 25-7-1997, the same was considered
showing undue haste.
25. In S.P. Kapoor (Dr) v. State of H.P. [(1981) 4 SCC 716 :
1982 SCC (L&S) 14 : AIR 1981 SC 2181] this Court held
that when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala
fide would be presumed, stating: (SCC p. 739, para 33)
“33. … The post-haste manner in which these things have
been done on 3-11-1979 suggests that some higher-up
was interested in pushing through the matter hastily when
66 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the Regular Secretary, Health and Family Welfare was
on leave.”
(Emphasis provided)

55. In Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC
388, this Court laid down the general principle that State action should
be grounded in sound principles and should not be unpredictable or
without basis. This Court noted as follows:
“27. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should
not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should
be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be
suggestive of discrimination nor even apparently give an
impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. The decision
should be made by the application of known principles and
rules and in general such decision should be predictable
and the citizen should know where he is, but if a decision
is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is
unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the
decision taken in accordance with the rule of law (vide
S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1427],
AIR p. 1434, para 14 and Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v.
Kerala Financial Corpn. [(1988) 1 SCC 166 : AIR 1988
SC 157] ).”
(Emphasis provided)

56. In the present case there are multiple deficiencies, as stated above.
The giving away of a rigorous criteria laid down in the UGC regulations
with a single, multiple-choice question based written test, and the
complete elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary
nature of the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness
laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, the learned
Single Judge had rightly struck down the entire selection process,
and the Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with
that conclusion.
57. Lastly we need to state that it is a settled principle that when the
law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it
should be done in that manner alone. [See: Cherukuri Mani v. Chief
Secretary, Govt of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 13 SCC 722,
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 67

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu (2023) 10 SCC 461, Nazir
Ahmed v. King-Emperor (LR 63 IA 372), Babu Verghese & Ors. v.
Bar Council of India & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 422]
58. True, the State is entitled to change its policy, yet a sudden change
without valid reasons will always be seen with suspicion. Even in
cases where there is no statutory prescription of any particular way
of doing a thing, the executive must observe the long-standing
practice, and a deviation from such a practice would require passing
the muster of reasonableness, which is a facet of Article 14 of the
Constitution. In this regard, this Court in Bannari Amman Sugars
Ltd. v. CTO (2005) 1 SCC 625 observed that:
“9. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of
the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute
or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in
terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made
fairly and should not give the impression that it was so
done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep
of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action
qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of
the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The
basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the
State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance
is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the
panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State
must act validly for discernible reasons, not whimsically
for any ulterior purpose…”
In the case at hand, the State did not adhere to UGC Regulations and
took the posts out of the purview of the Commission without following
the procedure prescribed under the law. And this was done suddenly
without any valid reason and thus, it would amount to arbitrariness
and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In Sivanandan C.T. v.
High Court of Kerala (2024) 3 SCC 799, the Constitution Bench
of this Court observed that:
“45. The underlying basis for the application of the doctrine
of legitimate expectation has expanded and evolved to
include the principles of good administration. Since citizens
repose their trust in the State, the actions and policies of
the State give rise to legitimate expectations that the State
68 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

will adhere to its assurance or past practice by acting in
a consistent, transparent, and predictable manner. The
principles of good administration require that the decisions
of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency,
transparency, and predictability to avoid being regarded
as arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.”
59. As far back as in the year 1979, this Court in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC
489, speaking through Justice PN Bhagwati, had said that government
jobs are also a kind of wealth and the State cannot distribute or
withhold such wealth on the basis of arbitrary principles. The relevant
portion from the said case law is as follows:
“11. Today the Government in a welfare State, is the
regulator and dispenser of special services and provider
of a large number of benefits, including jobs, contracts,
licences, quotas, mineral rights, etc. The Government pours
forth wealth, money, benefits, services, contracts, quotas
and licences. The valuables dispensed by Government
take many forms, but they all share one characteristic.
They are steadily taking the place of traditional forms of
wealth…..The discretion of the Government has been held
to be not unlimited in that the Government cannot give or
withhold largesse in its arbitrary discretion or at its sweet
will. It is insisted, as pointed out by Prof. Reich in an
especially stimulating article on “The New Property” in 73
Yale Law Journal 733, “that Government action be based
on standards that are not arbitrary or unauthorised”. The
Government cannot be permitted to say that it will give jobs
or enter into contracts or issue quotas or licences only in
favour of those having grey hair or belonging to a particular
political party or professing a particular religious faith…
12…It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where
the Government is dealing with the public, whether by
way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing
quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesse, the
Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like
a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but
its action must be in conformity with standard or norms
which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 69

Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant
of largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas,
licences, etc. must be confined and structured by rational,
relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if
the Government departs from such standard or norm in
any particular case or cases, the action of the Government
would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown
by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary,
but was based on some valid principle which in itself was
not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.”
In the present case, the State has miserably failed to justify the
departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process. It has
failed to give any valid reason for not adopting the UGC Regulations
and avoiding the Public Service Commission in the recruitment in
question. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the reason for this departure
were narrow political and clearly arbitrary.
60. Before parting, we would like to observe that we are aware of the fact
that quashing of the entire recruitment process may cause hardships
for the selected candidates, but at the same time, there is no equity
in the favour of selected candidates as challenge to the recruitment
was made during the pendency of the process and appointments
were subject to the Court orders. A gross illegality like the present
recruitment cannot be ignored.
61. Thus, considering the entire facts of the case, we allow these appeals
and set aside the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and quash the entire
recruitment and direct the State to initiate the recruitment process
as per the 2018 UGC Regulations which are now in force in the
State of Punjab.
62. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals Allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan