Delhi High Court
Dr Surendra Kumar Gupta vs Delhi Skill And Entrepreneurship ... on 11 September, 2025
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on 11.09.2025
+ W.P.(C) 14023/2025
DR SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Swarup, Advocate.
versus
DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
UNIVERSITY & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shivendra Singh & Ms.
Prakriti Rastogi, Advocates for R-
1.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel for GNCTD with Mr.
N.K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam & Mr.
Amol Rana, Advocates.
Mr. B.S. Rawat, CI DTTE for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 57359/2025 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14023/2025 and CM APPL. 57360/2025 (stay)
1. The petitioner is serving as a Lecturer on deemed deputation to
respondent No. 1 -- Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University ["the
University"], having originally been appointed by the Directorate of
Training and Technical Education ["DTTE"], Government of the
National Capital Territory of Delhi ["GNCTD"].
2. By way of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the petitioner challenges the notice dated 29.08.2025 issued by the
University, whereby candidates were called for interview for the post of
Registrar, but his name has been excluded.
3. I have heard Mr. Praveen Swarup, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Shivendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 -
University, and Ms. Aliza Alam, learned counsel for GNCTD.
4. By an advertisement dated 01.01.2025, the University invited
applications for various non-teaching posts, including one post each of
Registrar, Controller of Finance, and Controller of Examination. The
petitioner submitted applications for all three posts, but the present writ
petition pertains only to the petitioner's application for the post of
Registrar.
5. The qualifications mentioned in the said advertisement for the post
of Registrar were as follows:
"7. Educations and other Educational Qualification:
qualification required Master's degree with at least 55% of the
for direct recruits marks or its equivalent grade of B in the
UGC seven point scale:
Experience:
Officers holding analogous post in Pay
Level-14 (Pre-revised PB-4-Rs.37400-
67000 with GP of Rs. 10,000 under the
Central/StateGovt./University/Educational
Institutes of higher learning/Statutory or
Sem-Govt./Autonomous
organization/Public Sector Undertakings.
OR
Holding the post of Dy. Registrar in Pay
Level-12 (Pre-revised PB-3-Rs.15600-
39100 with GP of Rs. 7600/-) and having
at least 8 years of regular service in the
grade.
OR
Holding the post of Assistant
Professor/Assistant Registrar (Sr. Scale)
with 15 years of regular service.
OR
An IAS officer of AGMUT Cadre with one
year service in the Senior Scale.
OR
An office of UTCS Cadre with one year
service in the Junior Administrative
Grade.
Period of deputation - Shall not
ordinarily exceed five years Every
Registrar shall be entitled to be covered
under superannuation scheme of the
University."
6. The petitioner submitted an application on 09.02.2025. By a
communication dated 03.02.2025 addressed to the University, he
submitted that the qualifications for all three posts should be in
accordance with the norms of the University Grants Commission
["UGC"].
7. By the impugned notice dated 29.08.2025, the University called
eleven eligible candidates to appear for interview for the post of
Registrar. The petitioner is aggrieved by his exclusion from the said list.
8. It may be noted at the outset, that the petitioner does not dispute
that he fails to fulfil the eligibility criteria mentioned above. However, it
is his contention that the said eligibility criteria are inconsistent with the
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development
["MHRD"] by a letter dated 02.11.2017 addressed to the UGC.
9. Mr. Swarup points out that, (i) candidates at Academic Level XII
and above, with experience in educational administration; and (ii) persons
with comparable experience in research establishments and/or other
institutions of higher education, are expressly included in the MHRD's
letter dated 02.11.2017. However, he submits that these categories have
been wrongly excluded in the University's advertisement.
10. Following issuance of the notice dated 29.08.2025, the petitioner
addressed further communications to the University dated 04.09.2025 and
06.09.2025.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to
entertain this writ petition, on the ground that the petitioner, having
participated in the recruitment process by responding to the very same
advertisement, cannot challenge it after being found unsuccessful in the
recruitment process.
12. Prayer (a) of the writ petition reads as follows:
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order,
or direction, quashing the Advertisement dated 01.01.2025, to the
extent it lays down qualification criteria for the post of Registrar that
are inconsistent with the binding norms and guidelines issued by the
University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Ministry of Human
Resource Development (MHRD), thereby rendering it discriminatory,
arbitrary, and ultra vires1;"
13. It is evident therefrom that the petitioner does not argue that the
eligibility conditions mentioned in the advertisement were misapplied to
exclude him. The challenge rather is to the eligibility conditions
themselves. Mr. Swarup also candidly accepts that this is the position.
14. As regards a challenge to eligibility conditions, the settled principle
is that a candidate who has participated in the recruitment process cannot,
upon being unsuccessful, challenge those very eligibility conditions. This
position has been affirmed by several judgments of the Supreme Court,
Emphasis supplied.
including inter alia, Madan Lal v. State of J&K2, Manish Kumar Shahi v.
State of Bihar3, Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi4, and Mohd. Mustafa
v. Union of India5.
15. In Ramesh Chandra Shah, the Court observed as follows, upon a
consideration of the earlier authorities:
"18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the
process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the
method of selection and its outcome.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
24. In view of the propositions laid down in the abovenoted judgments,
it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection
with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the
General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the
advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making
selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made
by the respondents."
16. The aforesaid judgment was, inter alia, cited in Mohd. Mustafa,
with the following observations:
"35. It is in this context, we have to examine whether the appellants
are estopped from challenging the recommendations made by the
Empanelment Committee, given the fact that they had taken a
calculated chance, and not protested till the selection panel was made
public. In our opinion, the ratio in Madan Lal v. State of J&K6, would
apply in the present case as when a person takes a chance and
participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable,
turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection
committee was not properly constituted. This decision, no doubt,
pertains to a case where the petitioner had appeared at an open
interview, however, the ratio would apply to the present case as the
appellant too had taken a calculated chance in spite of the stakes, that
too without protest, and then has belatedly raised the plea of bias and
(1995) 3 SCC 486; paragraphs 9 and 10.
(2010) 12 SCC 576; paragraph 16.
(2013) 11 SCC 309; [hereinafter as "Ramesh Chandra Shah"].
(2022) 1 SCC 294; [hereinafter as "Mohd. Mustafa"].
(1995) 3 SCC 486.
prejudice only when he was not recommended. The judgment in Madan
Lal7 refers to an earlier decision of this Court in Om Prakash
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla8, wherein the petitioner who had
appeared at an examination without protest was not granted any relief,
as he had filed the petition when he could not succeed afterwards in
the examination. This principle has been reiterated in Manish Kumar
Shahi v. State of Bihar9, and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi10."
17. Having regard to the undisputed position that the petitioner did not
qualify under the eligibility conditions laid down, and that no challenge
was instituted at the appropriate stage, the discretionary remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution is not available to the petitioner.
18. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
19. It goes without saying that the petitioner's applications for the
posts of Controller of Finance and Controller of Examination shall be
considered on their own merits, in terms of the eligibility conditions for
those posts.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2025
'pv/sd'/
Ibid.
1986 Supp SCC 285.
(2010) 12 SCC 576.
(2013) 11 SCC 309.
