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 | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms |
Affirms that AICTE CAS Regulations do not apply to initial recruitment; overrules Division Bench order of Gujarat High Court dated 20.08.2025 |
| Type of Law | Statutory Interpretation; Service Law in Technical Education Recruitment |
| Questions of Law | Whether AICTE (Career Advancement Scheme) Regulations, 2012, framed under the AICTE Act, apply to direct recruitment of Professors under State Government engineering college recruitment rules |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| 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 | An advertisement dated 23.09.2015 invited applications for Professor (Plastic Engineering) posts under State Rules; the candidate scored 28/100 in the prescribed interview and was not recommended; she challenged the process invoking AICTE Regulations; the Single Judge dismissed her writ; the Division Bench applied AICTE CAS Regulations and invalidated the selection. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts and state recruitment bodies conducting direct appointments in technical institutions |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering interplay of AICTE Regulations and State recruitment rules |
| Overrules | Division Bench order of the Gujarat High Court dated 20.08.2025 |
| Distinguishes | Application of AICTE CAS Regulations to initial recruitment versus career progression contexts |
| Follows | ANUPAL SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2020) 2 SCC 173 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that AICTE CAS Regulations are promotion-oriented and do not govern initial appointments under State recruitment rules.
- Confirms that “direct recruitment” in AICTE Regulations applies only to incumbent academic staff entering the CAS ladder.
- Affirms that State-framed Recruitment Rules remain operative for initial hiring in government engineering colleges.
- Reinforces the principle that a candidate cannot challenge selection criteria after participating without objection.
- Lawyers may cite this decision in resisting belated invocation of AICTE Regulations in recruitment controversies.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Framework: AICTE Act, 1987 empowers the Council under Sections 10(i), 10(v) and 23(1) to frame norms for academic progression.
- Nature of AICTE Regulations: The 2012 CAS Regulations set out Performance Based Appraisal System scores and Selection Committee criteria for promotions (Regulations 2.5, 3.9, 6; Table-II(C)), presupposing incumbency.
- Distinction Between Recruitment and Promotion: AICTE CAS Regulations are not recruitment rules but promotion-and-progression rules for existing teaching staff.
- State Rules Prevail for Initial Appointment: Direct recruitment under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012 is governed solely by State Rules and general guidelines for advertisement.
- Estoppel Principle: A candidate who participates in and accepts the terms of a selection process cannot challenge the prescribed criteria after being unsuccessful (ANUPAL SINGH).
- Conclusion: AICTE CAS Regulations do not apply to the disputed direct recruitment; the High Court’s setting aside of the selection process was unsustainable.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Commission)
- AICTE CAS Regulations do not apply to initial recruitment; they govern only career advancement.
- The advertisement and State Rules clearly prescribed interview-based selection; candidate’s participation without protest bars challenge.
Respondent (Candidate)
- AICTE Regulations, being framed under a Parliamentary Act, prevail over State Rules.
- Principle of estoppel cannot be invoked; her fundamental right under Article 16 was infringed by flawed evaluation.
- Her strong academic credentials warranted application of AICTE criteria.
Factual Background
In September 2015 the State Public Service Commission advertised seven Professor posts, including Plastic Engineering, under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012. The candidate applied and appeared for an interview on 17.12.2015, scoring 28/100 against a 45/100 qualifying mark and was not selected. She filed a writ petition invoking AICTE CAS Regulations. The Single Judge dismissed her challenge; the Gujarat High Court Division Bench set aside the recruitment process applying AICTE Regulations. The Supreme Court granted leave and restored the validity of the State-governed selection process.
Statutory Analysis
- AICTE Act, 1987
- Section 10(i): Norms and standards for staff qualifications and quality.
- Section 10(v): Other functions as prescribed.
- Section 23(1): Power to frame Regulations consistent with the Act.
- AICTE (CAS for Teachers in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012
- Regulation 2.5: Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee and PBAS scoring.
- Regulation 3.9: Promotion to Professor (Stage 5) requires incumbency, API thresholds, and Selection Committee assessment.
- Regulation 6: Counting past service for CAS.
- Appendix I, Table-II(C): API minimum scores and weightages for career advancement, not initial recruitment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Relied on ANUPAL SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Overruled Gujarat High Court Division Bench order of 20.08.2025