NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday quashed the appointment of 1,158 assistant professors and librarians in Punjab observing “total arbitrariness” in the selection process. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran set aside the September 2024 decision of the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld the appointments. The process began in October 2021, when the Punjab Director of Higher Education issued a public notice inviting online applications for assistant professor posts for various subjects and for librarians ahead of the state assembly elections. The recruitment later came under legal scrutiny after several candidates filed petitions alleging irregularities in the merit-based selection process. The top court said the state cannot defend such an “arbitrary practice” in the garb of a policy decision. “We have to keep in mind that these were the posts of assistant professors for which a specialised body like UGC has prescribed a process for the selections, which includes appreciation of academic work of a candidate, his/her performance in viva-voce, amongst others,” the bench said. The top court continued, “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 apex court said even if it ignored the argument of political expediency, it couldn’t but notice the “executive hegemony” in reversing a decision of the council of ministers, without reference to the said body. “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 top court noted one was not required to give an elaborate answer to a question akin to a subjective type of test. “Instead, it was an objective type of test in which the correct answer was to be given from multiple-choice of answers.” The court went on, “The elimination of the viva-voce, which is such a vital component in the overall appreciation of merit of a candidate, who has to teach in a higher education institute, was another grave error.” The top court underlined the intention to conclude the exercise quickly by the authorities which though sought to be justified on grounds of expediency in filling up the posts, undermined the selection by reason of no qualitative assessment of the candidates carried out. The high court single judge was observed to have “rightly” noted that the approach cast “serious doubts” on the fairness of the process and the impartiality of the selectors, who were likely to be under pressure to complete the exercise within the timeline, regardless of the quality of the selections. “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. Impartiality, fairness and recognition of merit while selecting public servants are absolutely necessary in modern democracies, it added.
