MANDEEP SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 14-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 incorpo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.