AICTE CAS Regulations Not Applicable to Direct Professor Recruitment | SC
- News|Blog|Labour & Industrial Laws|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 18 February, 2026
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Gujarat Public Service Commission vs. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 503 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the appellant-Commission issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Professor in the Government Engineering Colleges in Gujarat under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012.
The Respondent-candidate applied for the post, appeared in an interview, but was not recommended for the selection. She filed a writ petition invoking the AICTE (Career Advancement Scheme) Regulations, 2012 and challenging the selection process. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
The Division Bench held that the AICTE Regulations governed even direct recruitment to the post of Professor in the Government Engineering Colleges, invalidated the selection process for the post, set aside the Single Judge’s order, and directed the Commission to constitute the selection committee and evaluate candidates adhering to the AICTE Regulations.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court observed that the AICTE Regulations are not recruitment regulations but rather regulations framed to advance the careers of incumbent teachers already embedded in the academic system. Therefore, the AICTE Regulations do not apply to the process of direct recruitment under the State Rules.
The Supreme Court held that, since the candidate had participated in the selection process without protest, she could not challenge the Rules of the game after being declared unsuccessful. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Division Bench was to be quashed and set aside.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Order of High Court of Gujarat (Division Bench) in LPA-866-2025, dated 20.08.2025 (para 20) set aside
- Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 173 (para 18) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 173 (para 18).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
