AICTE Career Advancement Rules Can’t Override State Recruitment Norms: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on January 19, 2026 held that the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regulations relating to career advancement cannot be used to override state rules governing the recruitment of teachers in technical education.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe clarified that the AICTE regulations do not apply to the process of direct recruitment carried out under state rules.

“The regulations are designed to advance a career, not to initiate one at a particular rung. To apply AICTE regulations to a candidate participating in recruitment for the post of Professor in engineering colleges in the state, conducted by the Public Service Commission under state rules, would be to stretch the AICTE regulations beyond their text, context and purpose. The law does not permit a regulation crafted as a ladder to be used as a gate,” the bench observed.

Court allowed an appeal filed by the Gujarat Public Service Commission, challenging a division bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated August 20, 2025. The High Court had set aside a single judge’s order which had dismissed a writ petition filed by Gnaneshwari Dushyantkumar Shah seeking appointment as Professor (Plastic Engineering).

“The AICTE regulations and the state rules operate in different fields. Therefore, the question of one superseding the other does not arise,” the bench said.

The candidate had applied for the sole post of Professor (Plastic Engineering) pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2015. The recruitment process was conducted under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012.

For female candidates in the unreserved category, the minimum qualifying mark was fixed at 45 out of 100. The candidate secured only 28 marks and was therefore not recommended for selection by the Commission.

She challenged the selection process by relying on the AICTE (Career Advancement Scheme for Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2012, and sought a direction to appoint her to the post.

The single judge held that the candidate was bound by Clause 3 of the advertisement and Clause 15 of the general guidelines, which provided for selection through an interview. It was also noted that she had participated in the selection process without protest. The single judge further observed that her suitability had been assessed by an expert committee and no interference was warranted in judicial review.

On appeal, the division bench of the High Court set aside the selection process, holding that the AICTE regulations governed even direct recruitment to the post of Professor in government engineering colleges, and that the interview-based selection was contrary to those regulations.

Examining the Commission’s challenge, the Supreme Court said that a careful reading of the regulations makes it clear that they deal with stages of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme for incumbent and newly appointed Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors.

“The entire scheme proceeds on the foundational assumption that the person to whom the regulations apply is already an incumbent or a newly appointed faculty member. The regulations are not recruitment rules but rules for promotion and progression,” court said.

The bench noted that the expression ‘direct recruitment’ used in the regulations appears only in the limited context of determining how existing faculty members enter the Career Advancement Scheme. The Academic Performance Index, weightage tables and evaluation systems under the regulations presuppose an existing service record, teaching experience and research output within the academic system.

“These provisions cannot logically apply to a person who is not yet part of that system,” court added.

In the present case, the candidate was an aspirant in an open competitive recruitment conducted under the state rules. She was neither an incumbent nor a newly appointed Professor and was not a Career Advancement Scheme candidate. The court held that reliance on the AICTE regulations was therefore misplaced.

While acknowledging that AICTE, as the apex statutory body, lays down uniform standards for technical education which ordinarily prevail over inconsistent state prescriptions, the bench clarified that the regulations relied upon by the candidate were meant for career advancement and not for recruitment.

“The Act does not empower the AICTE to abolish state recruitment rules for government colleges. It empowers the AICTE to ensure standards of education and service conditions, particularly for career progression,” the bench said.

Court also pointed out a serious flaw in the candidate’s challenge. The interview criteria and qualifying marks were clearly mentioned in the advertisement. She applied, participated in the process and took her chance. Only after being declared unsuccessful did she seek to rely on a different regulatory framework.

“It is a settled principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest cannot challenge the rules of the game after being declared unsuccessful,” the bench observed.

The Supreme Court therefore held that the High Court division bench erred in concluding that the candidate was not barred from challenging the selection process.

“Though the records indicate substantial research credentials and technical expertise on the part of the candidate, the courts do not make appointments. A recruitment concluded in 2015 cannot be reopened in 2025 on the basis of regulations that never applied to it,” the bench said, while setting aside the High Court’s order and upholding the recruitment.

Case Title: Gujarat Public Service Commission Vs Gnaneshwari Dushyantkumar Shah & Ors

Judgment Date: January 19, 2026

Bench: Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe