Mandeep Singh & Ors. vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Held: In the present case, the State has miserably failed to justify the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process – There is a gross illegality in the recruitment process – Art.320(3) of the Constitution provides that the Commission shall be consulted in the recruitment of different services – This Court in Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, had recognised the importance of Regulations framed under the proviso to Art.320(3) of the Constitution and had cautioned against the casual bypassing of the Regulations – In the case at hand, Regulations as contemplated under the Proviso were already in existence in Punjab known as Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 – The posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians in Degree Colleges were within the purview of the Commission – Thus, selection of these posts was within the purview of the State Commission, and it was mandatory that it ought to be consulted – The respondents have tried to meet this deficiency by stating that the State had amended the 1955 Regulations in March 2022 (by retrospective effect), by mentioning these posts in the 1955 Regulations and these posts were then taken out from the purview of Commission – However, the amendment was made after concluding the entire recruitment process and giving appointment letters to the selected candidates – It was hence a post facto exercise – The 1955 Regulations prescribed a procedure under which posts within the purview of the Commission could be withdrawn – It is admitted that in the present case the required procedure was not followed – In case the State government was dissatisfied with the manner in which the Commission was conducting the recruitment ought to have followed the due procedure and withdrawn the posts from the purview of the Commission in accordance with the 1955 Regulations – As far as UGC Regulations are concerned, a method of selection to these posts is also provided in the 2010 UGC Regulations which has not been followed in the present case – Besides that, there are multiple deficiencies – The giving away of a rigorous criteria laid down in the UGC regulations with a single, multiple-choice question based written test, and the complete elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary nature of the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness laid down u/Art.14 of the Constitution – Hence, the Single Judge had rightly struck down the entire selection process, and the Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with that conclusion. [Paras 9, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 40, 56, 59, 60] UGC Act, 1956 – UGC Regulations of 2010 – UGC Regulations 2018 – The distinction between adoption by incorporation as opposed to reference – Discussed:

Held: The distinction here is that in case of adoption by incorporation, the subsequent amendment or repeal of the incorporated statute will be of no consequences on the incorporation – The adoption then becomes frozen at the point in time when the incorporation was made – But the question whether a provision of law is adopted by reference or incorporation also depends upon the language of the order/statute in which such provision is being adopted – It may also depend upon the conduct of the State and how it has been recognised and accepted in that State – 2018 UGC Regulations may have repealed the 2010 UGC Regulations but still they were being considered and recognised in the State of Punjab for all purposes, even after its repeal – In the instant case, this Court has already referred the order dated 30.07.2013 whereby the State Government had adopted 2010 Regulations and the reasons assigned by the State Government in doing so which was to uplift the standard of higher education. [Para 38]

Constitution of India – Art.320(3) – Art.320(3)(a) – Nature and Scope:

Held: Art.320(3) speaks of a variety of matters where the Commission is to be consulted- (a) Recruitment in Service and

(c) disciplinary matters, being two such instances – Whereas Art.320(3)(c) is generally concerned with individual matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, Art.320(3)(a) deals with policy issues where an entire recruitment process is at stake. [Para 20] Constitution of India – Art.14 – Duties and Responsibilities of State and its instrumentality:

Held: The State and its instrumentalities have a duty and responsibility to act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate of Art.14 of the Constitution – 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 post-haste 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 – In the present case there are multiple deficiencies, as stated above – The giving away of a rigorous criteria laid down in the UGC regulations with a single, multiple-choice question based written test, and the complete elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary nature of the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness laid down under Art.14 of the Constitution – Hence, the Single Judge had rightly struck down the entire selection process, and the Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with that conclusion. [Paras 52, 56]

Public Service Commissions – Purpose, Role and Evolution in India – Discussed. [Paras 8-16]