Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000344-000344 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 54046/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE |
| Precedent Value | Clarifies non-applicability of AICTE CAS Regulations to initial recruitment; binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules High Court Division Bench order; affirms State Government recruitment under State Rules |
| Type of Law | Administrative and Education Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether AICTE (CAS) Regulations apply to direct recruitment of Professors under State Rules |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The AICTE Regulations are designed as promotion and progression rules for incumbent academic staff within technical institutions and presuppose a service profile under the Career Advancement Scheme. They are not framed as recruitment regulations and cannot be stretched to govern open competitive direct recruitment conducted under State Government Rules. A candidate who participates in a selection process without protest cannot challenge the prescribed evaluation criteria after being declared unsuccessful. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | ANUPAL SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2020) 2 SCC 173 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Advertisement dated 23.09.2015 for Professor (Plastic Engineering); candidate scored 28/100 in interview; challenged selection under AICTE Regulations; Single Judge dismissed; High Court set aside selection; Supreme Court grants appeal |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and recruitment bodies in technical education |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and selection authorities |
| Overrules | Gujarat High Court Division Bench’s order dated 20.08.2025 |
| Distinguishes | Application of AICTE CAS Regulations (for internal promotions) from State Government recruitment rules |
| Follows | ANUPAL SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2020) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- AICTE’s Career Advancement Scheme regulations are construed as internal promotion rules, not as external recruitment regulations.
- Direct recruitment rules framed by State Government remain unaffected by AICTE CAS Regulations for career progression.
- A candidate who participates in an interview with full knowledge of the criteria cannot challenge those criteria after being unsuccessful.
- The decision clarifies that AICTE norms set national standards for quality but do not override State recruitment statutes in non-overlapping domains.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Interpretation of AICTE Act: Section 23(1) empowers AICTE to frame regulations under its functions in Section 10(i) and (v).
- Examination of AICTE (CAS) Regulations, 2012:
- Regulations 2.5, 3, 3.9, 6 and Table-II(C) of Appendix I provide for performance-based appraisal for internal promotions.
- “Direct recruitment” appears only in the limited context of entry into the Career Advancement Scheme.
- Contextual and purposive construction: The CAS Regulations presuppose incumbency within the institutional framework and cannot serve as recruitment rules for outsiders.
- Principle against after-the-fact challenge: Citing Anupal Singh, a candidate who takes part in a selection process without objection is estopped from challenging the rules after the outcome.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- AICTE Regulations do not apply to initial direct recruitment under State Rules.
- Advertisement unambiguously prescribed interview-based assessment; candidate is bound by Clause 3 and Clause 15.
- Candidate’s participation without protest precludes challenge to selection process.
Respondent
- AICTE Regulations, framed under a Parliamentary Act, prevail over State Rules.
- Principle of estoppel cannot bar challenge to contravention of fundamental right under Article 16.
- Candidate possesses superior qualifications and research credentials.
Factual Background
In 2015 the Gujarat Public Service Commission advertised seven Professor posts, including one in Plastic Engineering, under State Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules 2012. The candidate appeared for an interview on 17.12.2015, scored 28/100 against a 45/100 cut-off, and was not recommended. She then challenged the selection process invoking AICTE (CAS) Regulations 2012. The Single Judge dismissed her writ, but the Division Bench set aside the recruitment and directed a fresh selection under AICTE Regulations. The Supreme Court granted appeal to resolve whether the AICTE CAS norms applied to direct recruitment.
Statutory Analysis
- AICTE Act, 1987
- Section 10(i) & (v): Functions empowering AICTE to set norms for academic personnel.
- Section 23(1): Authority to frame regulations.
- AICTE (CAS) Regulations, 2012
- Regulation 2.5: Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee for CAS promotions.
- Regulation 3 & 3.9: Eligibility and stages for advancement to Professor (Stage 5).
- Regulation 6: Counting past services for CAS.
- Table II(C) (Appendix I): Academic Performance Index criteria for CAS.
- Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012
- Clauses 15(7)–(9) & Clause 16(1): Interview-based direct recruitment criteria.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Division Bench’s assumption that AICTE CAS Regulations override State recruitment rules is overturned.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms principle from Anupal Singh that participation without protest bars later challenge to selection criteria.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Reconciles AICTE’s regulatory domain with State recruitment statutes, disambiguating overlapping areas.