“PSC Consultation & Incorporated UGC Regulations Are Non-Negotiable” – A Comprehensive Commentary on Mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2025)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Mandeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. strikes squarely at executive shortcuts in public employment. Sparked by Punjab’s hurried appointment of 1,158 Assistant Professors and Librarians through a two-month, multiple-choice examination, the case presented three intersecting themes:

• Whether posts already “within the purview” of the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) can be filled departmentally without following the withdrawal procedure envisioned in the Punjab Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1955 (“1955 Regulations”).
• Whether the University Grants Commission (“UGC”) Regulations, 2010—earlier adopted by Punjab—continue to bind the State even after the UGC superseded them in 2018.
• Constitutional limits on State discretion, especially Article 14’s prohibition of arbitrariness in policymaking and employment decisions.

The appellants—unsuccessful applicants and teacher aspirants—contended that the State’s volte-face recruitment violated Article 320, defied the incorporated UGC norms, and was propelled by electoral expediency. The High Court’s Division Bench had earlier upheld the recruitment, reversing a Single Judge. The Supreme Court has now restored the Single Judge’s view, quashing the entire process and formulating important rules for future recruitments.

2. Summary of the Judgment

By a two-Judge Bench (Dhulia & Chandran, JJ.), the Court:

1. Allowed the appeals, set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s Division Bench judgment of 23-Sep-2024, and annulled the whole recruitment of 1,158 posts.
2. Held that consultation with, and selection by, the PPSC was compulsory because the posts had never been lawfully withdrawn from its purview under the 1955 Regulations.
3. Clarified that Punjab’s 2013 adoption of the UGC Regulations, 2010 was an adoption by incorporation; therefore those Regulations remained operative in Punjab even after the UGC replaced them in 2018, until the State expressly adopted the 2018 text (which happened only after the litigation).
4. Condemned the State’s sudden switch to a single multiple-choice test, elimination of viva voce/API scoring, and lightning-fast timeline as arbitrary, unreasonable, and vitiated by political expediency.
5. Directed Punjab to restart recruitment in accordance with the (now-adopted) UGC Regulations, 2018 and through the constitutionally envisioned PSC mechanism.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (1957)
  A Constitution Bench had described Article 320(3) as directory. The present Bench distinguished it: that case dealt with Article 320(3)(c) (disciplinary matters of a single employee), whereas recruitment of entire cadres under Article 320(3)(a) implicates public policy and fairness. Even if directory, once a State frames Regulations under the proviso, those Regulations become binding. Thus Manbodhan could not rescue Punjab’s action.
• Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India (1979)
  Explained the distinction between “legislation by reference” and “legislation by incorporation.” The Court used this taxonomy to hold that Punjab’s 2013 order was incorporation: the UGC norms became frozen into State law and survived UGC’s later repeal.
• Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022)
  Confirmed that UGC Regulations, as subordinate legislation under Entry 66 List I, prevail over inconsistent State statutes/rules under Entry 25 List III. Relied upon to fortify the supremacy of UGC norms in higher-education appointments.
• State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995)
  Reiterated the vertical supremacy of Entry 66. Cited to affirm that UGC standards cannot be diluted by State rules.
• Arbitrariness & haste line of cases:
  Ramana Dayaram Shetty (1979); Zenit Mataplast (2009); Fuljit Kaur (2010); Bahadursinh Gohil (2004). These collectively provided the constitutional framework for striking down an action that is “post-haste, opaque, and mala fide in appearance.”

3.2 Core Legal Reasoning

1. Obligation to Route Recruitment through PSC:
   • Article 320(3)(a) – despite being labelled “directory” – compels adherence once a post is placed within PSC’s remit.
   • 1955 Regulations lay down a three-step withdrawal procedure (Commission’s views ⇒ Council of Ministers’ approval ⇒ amendment). Punjab skipped every step, making a post facto amendment in March 2022, long after appointments. A retrospective cure could not validate a void act.
2. Binding Effect of Adopted UGC Regulations:
   • Adoption was by incorporation; hence repeal of the source (2010 Regulations) does not loosen the State’s commitment.
   • 2010 Regulations mandated 50 : 30 : 20 weightage for academic record, domain knowledge/viva, and interview—unmistakably broader than a MCQ test.
   • A unilateral switch to an easier test directly contradicted the adopted standard and therefore violated both the UGC Act (Entry 66) and Article 14.
3. Arbitrariness & Political Expediency:
   • Government changed method immediately after a change in office (Sept 2021) and weeks before Assembly elections (Feb 2022).
   • Entire cycle—from advertisement to appointment—finished in 45 days. Such speed was “prima facie suspect” and per earlier decisions, a hallmark of mala fide or non-application of mind.
4. Doctrine of “Thing to be Done in a Particular Manner”
   • Quoted Babu Verghese line of cases: once the statute prescribes a mode, all other modes are forbidden. Ignoring PSC and UGC norms was fatal.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

The ruling is poised to influence three concentric circles:

1. Punjab & similarly placed States
   • Any departmental hiring of teaching staff where PSC purview still exists now risks invalidation.
   • States must expressly and prospectively amend their “Limitation of Functions” Regulations before issuing recruitment notifications.
2. Higher-Education Hiring Nationally
   • Confirms that once a State “opts in” to UGC norms (often tied to grants), it cannot cherry-pick or partially apply them.
   • Places API/viva and qualitative assessment back at the centre of Assistant-Professor selection.
3. Administrative Law Doctrine
   • Narrows the scope of the 1957 Manbodhan directory interpretation, at least for mass-recruitment contexts.
   • Reinforces “adoption by incorporation” jurisprudence: incorporated subordinate legislation is frozen unless expressly replaced.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Article 320(3) – A constitutional clause obliging the State to seek the PSC’s advice in recruitment (a), promotions (b), and disciplinary matters (c). Think of the PSC as an anti-nepotism firewall. Punjab removed the firewall without flipping the switch legally.
• Adoption by Incorporation vs. Reference
  • Incorporation: the adopted text is copied & frozen inside State law, immune to future changes outside.
  • Reference: the adopted text remains dynamic— future amendments automatically flow in. Punjab’s 2013 order fell in the first basket.
• API Scores (Academic Performance Indicator)
  A matrix developed by UGC to quantify teaching experience, research publications, seminars, etc. It ensures a holistic peer-reviewed assessment beyond exam marks.
• Doctrine of Repugnancy (Article 254)
  Where a State rule clashes with a Central law on a concurrent subject, the Central law prevails, unless the State obtains Presidential assent. Here, UGC Regulations (Central) trumped the 1976 Punjab service rules to the extent of inconsistency.

5. Conclusion

Mandeep Singh is a ringing endorsement of transparent, merit-centric public employment. By intertwining Constitutional provisions (Art. 14 & 320), federal distribution of legislative power (Entry 66 vs. 25), and administrative-law fairness, the Court has declared:

“No State may dilute nationally-set academic standards or bypass its own Public Service Commission through executive fiat, hurried timelines, or retrospective patch-ups.”

Practically, States must now:

• Follow their PSC limitation regulations to the letter when excluding posts.
• Either consistently apply the UGC Regulations they have adopted or formally adopt newer versions before initiating recruitment.
• Provide recorded, rational reasons for altering selection methodology; inertia or political deadlines will not suffice.

For aspirants, the decision restores faith that judicial review remains a potent guardian against ad-hocism in government hiring. For administrators, it is a cautionary tale: procedural discipline and statutory fidelity are not optional boxes but constitutional commands.