HC upholds recruitment process of 1,091 assistant professors, 67 librarians in Punjab Govt colleges

A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has overturned a previous ruling that invalidated the recruitment process for 1,091 assistant professors and 67 librarians in Punjab Government colleges. This decision came in response to a bunch of appeals challenging the order dated August 8, 2022, by a Single Bench.

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed the petitioners before the Single Bench had contested the recruitment process initiated by the Punjab Government. Among other things, they had sought quashing of a memo dated October 18, 2021, and a public notice dated October 19, 2021, both related to the recruitment process.

Claiming that the selection process was fundamentally flawed, they asked for directions to fill the vacant positions through the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) in accordance with service rules and University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations.

Referring to the factual background of the matter, the Division Bench asserted it indicated that the Punjab Government launched the recruitment process through the memo allowing written tests to be conducted by selection committees from Guru Nanak Dev University and Punjabi University. The memo included relaxations in age limits and marks for part-time or contractual teachers.

Following the issuance of the public notice inviting applications for these positions, a proposal to revert to PPSC for recruitment was rejected. Written tests were conducted between November 20 and 22, 2021, and the results were announced on November 28. The appointment orders were issued for 607 candidates on December 2-3, 2021. But the government on December 18 retracted the earlier weightage for experience, stating that selections would now be based solely on test merit.

After hearing the arguments, the Single Judge set aside the selection by noting that the government's actions appeared to be a facade to justify its decisions. The court admonished the government for disrespecting the constitutional authority of PPSC by withdrawing requisitions for posts that were already in advanced stages of recruitment.

The applicability of UGC regulations regarding candidate assessments was reinforced, alongside the assertion that the selection criteria in the impugned memo were incompatible with UGC standards.

The Division Bench, however, found merit in all the appeals and quashed the impugned judgment of the Single Judge. The court also directed the respondents to complete the necessary formalities and facilitate the joining of the appellants.

The core issue revolved around whether the UGC Regulations of 2018 were properly adopted during the Council of Ministers meeting on September 17, 2021. Pointing at Supreme Court precedents treating procedural rules as directory, the Bench asserted that the Chief Minister’s later approval of the minutes was sufficient, even though he was absent during the meeting.

The court observed that the 2018 UGC Regulations were not adopted in that meeting, but the older 1976 Rules should govern the recruitment process. The Bench added there is no absolute rule stating that only the PPSC's recruitment was required to be treated with the highest regard, in light of a recent scam in its recruitment process.

The appellants were represented by senior advocates Rajiv Atma Ram, Anupam Gupta and R.S. Bains. The other lawyers include Puneet Gupta, Saurabh Arora, Shiv Kumar Sharma, Brijesh Khosla, Shreya Kaushik, Gautam Pathania, Sukhpal Singh, Amrik Singh, Anmoldeep Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Anil Rana, and Ravindra Singh.