SC cancels 1,158 assistant professor and librarian posts in Punjab over arbitrary selection process

The Supreme Court on July 14 struck down the appointments of 1,158 assistant professors and librarians in Punjab, calling the recruitment process “totally arbitrary” and lacking transparency.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s September 2024 ruling, which had upheld the selections.

The case dates back to October 2021, when the state’s Higher Education Department invited online applications for teaching and librarian posts across multiple subjects.

The recruitment drive, launched just before the assembly elections, later faced legal challenges from candidates who alleged flaws in the merit-based selection process.

The apex court found that the procedure adopted deviated from established norms and lacked essential evaluation components.

“We have to keep in mind that these were the posts of assistant professors for which a specialized body like UGC has prescribed a process for the selections, which includes appreciation of the academic work of a candidate and his/her performance in viva-voce, amongst others,” the bench said.

“Just a simple multiple-choice question-based written exam cannot be sufficient to check the suitability of such candidates. Even if it is, then also, in the present case, the sudden replacement of a time-tested recruitment process with a new process was not only arbitrary but was done without following the due procedure, which vitiates the entire process,” the court added.

The judges also flagged concerns over executive overreach, saying the state had reversed a decision of the council of ministers without referring the matter back to them.

They noted the written test failed to adequately assess the merit or innovative capabilities of candidates.

“It also undermines the quality of selection, since there was no comprehensive exercise to examine the merit of a candidate. The written test did not challenge the innovative faculty of a candidate,” the court said.

“Instead, it was an objective type of test in which the correct answer was to be given from multiple-choice answers,” it added.

Eliminating the viva-voce round, the court said, was a serious lapse. “The elimination of the viva-voce, which is such a vital component in the overall appreciation of the merit of a candidate who has to teach in a higher education institute, was another grave error.”

The bench further criticized the urgency shown by the authorities to complete the process, saying the effort to fast-track hiring compromised fairness.

The single judge of the high court had “rightly” questioned the integrity of the process, noting the likelihood of selectors being pressured to finish appointments within a deadline, even at the cost of quality.

“Any decision taken by the State must be reasoned and not arbitrary. This Court has consistently held that when a thing is done in a posthaste manner, mala fides would be presumed, and further that anything done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law,” the bench said.

The court emphasized that public recruitment must be based on fairness, impartiality, and merit, principles fundamental to any modern democracy.