Delhi High Court
Santosh Kumar vs University Of Delhi & Ors. on 24 March, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.03.2025
+ LPA 62/2025
SANTOSH KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. M.S.Khan, Adv.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 4954/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL. 4955/2025 & CM APPL. 4956/2025
2. Thess applications have been filed by the appellant seeking
condonation of delay of around 112 days in filing and a further delay
of 125 days in re-filing the present appeal against the Judgment dated
15.03.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
WP(C) 1253/2018 titled Dr. Huma Baqa & Ors. v. University of
Delhi & Ors..
3. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 112 days
in filing and 125 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
4. The applications stand disposed of.
5. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the
Judgment dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in WP(C) 1253/2018 titled Dr. Huma Baqa & Ors. v.
University of Delhi & Ors., dismissing the said writ petition filed by,
inter alia, the appellant herein.
6. The appellant had filed the above petition claiming therein that
he had been appointed as an Assistant Professor, on ad hoc basis, with
the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi on 21.07.2009. By an
advertisement dated 27.01.2017, the respondent invited applications
for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The appellant duly
applied for the same, and a final Select List was prepared by the
selection committee on 28.09.2017, however, the result thereof was
neither kept in a sealed cover nor was declared till 27.01.2018,
thereby, giving rise to the allegations of mala fide on the part of the
respondents.
7. The appellant further submitted before the learned Single Judge
and also before us, that the appellant having worked as an Assistant
Professor with the University of Delhi, though on ad hoc basis, from
2009, had a legitimate expectation for being confirmed/regularised to
the said post.
8. The above submission of the appellant has been rejected by the
learned Single Judge placing reliance on the Judgments of the
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors.,
(2006) 4 SCC 753, and Union of India & Ors. v. Ilmo Devi & Anr.,
(2021) 20 SCC 290.
9. The learned Single Judge has further noted that the appellant
having participated in the selection process is now estopped from
challenging the same. We are also informed that, in fact, the appellant
had also applied and participated in the subsequent selection process,
however, unfortunately remained unsuccessful.
10. On the issue of mala fide, the learned Single Judge perused the
record produced by the respondents herein, and found that the sealed
list of recommended candidates was put forth before the Executive
Council meeting held on 30th December, 2018 and the same was
notified in the public domain thereafter. Apart from contending that
there was a delay in the announcement of results, the appellant has not
been able to show any variation in the results that may substantiate his
allegations of mala fide or even cast a doubt on the selection process.
11. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present appeal.
The same is accordingly dismissed. Needless to mention that the
appellant shall be entitled to apply for any subsequent selection
process in accordance with the rules and regulations of the same, and
this order will not act as a bar for consideration of his candidature in
accordance with law.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
MARCH 24, 2025
p/VS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
