High Court upholds recruitment process of 1,091 asst professors, 67 librarians

A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has overturned a previous ruling that invalidated the recruitment process of 1,091 assistant professors and 67 librarians in government colleges. This decision came in response to 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 state. Among other things, they had sought quashing of a memo dated October 18, 2021, and a public notice dated October 19, 2021. 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.

The HC asserted it indicated that the state 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 relaxation in age limits and marks for part-time or contractual teachers.

Following the issuance of the public notice inviting applications for the posts, a proposal to revert to the PPSC for recruitment was rejected. Written tests were conducted between November 20 and 22, 2021, and the results 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.

The Single Judge set aside the selection and noted 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 the PPSC by withdrawing requisitions for posts that were already at 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 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 subsequent approval of the minutes was sufficient, although he was absent during the meeting.