Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe on Monday (January 19, 2026) held that AICTE’s 2012 Career Advancement Scheme regulations cannot be invoked to judge eligibility or assessment in direct recruitment of professors for State government engineering colleges carried out by a State public service commission under the State’s recruitment framework. The Court allowed the commission’s appeal, quashed the Gujarat High Court’s decision that had required primacy to AICTE criteria, and upheld the selection process initiated through the 23 September 2015 advertisement. The dispute stemmed from an unsuccessful applicant’s challenge to the interview-based evaluation by seeking application of AICTE performance-index weightages. The Bench said a scheme meant to help career progression cannot be converted into a barrier for entry.

The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated by a State Public Service Commission through an advertisement dated 23.09.2015 for appointment to several posts of Professors in Government Engineering Colleges, including one post of Professor (Plastic Engineering). The recruitment was conducted under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012 and the general guidelines governing selection. The eligibility criteria and method of assessment prescribed selection on the basis of a personal interview. The candidate participated in the interview process held on 17.12.2015 and failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for her category.

Also Read: Motive Mainly Matters In Circumstantial Cases; Direct Evidence Like Dying Declaration Can Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court

After being declared unsuccessful, she challenged the selection process by invoking the All-India Council for Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012, contending that the interview-based assessment violated the regulatory framework. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court. However, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, held that AICTE Regulations governed even direct recruitment, and invalidated the selection process. This led the Public Service Commission to approach the Supreme Court.

The Court examined the scope and structure of the AICTE Regulations and observed that “the answer to the issue is found not merely in text of the Regulations but in the very architecture of the Regulations.” It recorded that the Regulations were framed under statutory powers to govern career advancement and progression of teachers already within the academic system. The Court stated that “the Regulations are not Recruitment Rules but are Promotion and Progression Rules.”

While analysing the scheme, the Court noted that “the entire scheme of the Regulations proceeds on one foundational basis that the person to whom the Regulations apply must already be an incumbent or a newly appointed Assistant Professor/Associate Professor or Professor.” It further observed that the evaluation mechanisms under the Regulations “presuppose a service profile, institutional record, teaching performance and research output accumulated within the academic system.”

On the applicability of the Regulations to open recruitment, the Court stated that “the provisions of the Regulations, therefore, cannot logically apply to a person who is not yet a part of that system.” It clarified that the candidate before it was “an aspirant in an open competitive recruitment conducted under the State Rules by the Commission.”

The Court acknowledged the general supremacy of AICTE norms in matters of academic standards but recorded that “the AICTE Regulations relied upon by the candidate are not recruitment regulations but are the regulations framed for advancement of career of incumbent teachers.” It cautioned that “to apply AICTE Regulations to a candidate participating in recruitment… would be to stretch the AICTE Regulations beyond its text, context, and purpose.”

On conduct of the candidate, the Court observed that “the candidate applied, appeared and took her chance” and reiterated the settled position that “a candidate having participated in the process of selection, without protest, cannot challenge the Rules of the game after being declared unsuccessful.”

Also Read: Victim’s Statement Alone Can Prima Facie Sustain SC/ST Act Charge; Kerala High Court

The Court directed that “the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, cannot be sustained.” The said order “is accordingly quashed and set aside. The recruitment conducted by the Commission in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23.09.2015 is upheld. The appeal is allowed” and that “there shall be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Premal Joshi, Adv. Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv. Ms. Prerana Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Prina Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, AOR

Case Title: Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 70
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 27710 of 2025
Bench: Justice P.S.  Narasimha, Justice Alok Aradhe