[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Abc vs Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical ... on 13 April, 2026
$~36 & 47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 13.04.2026
% LPA 256/2026 & CM APPLs. 23764-66/2026 & 23768/2026
ABC .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Rishabh Kapur and Mr.Tanmay
Gupta, Advs.
versus
INDIRA GANDHI DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FOR
WOMEN & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Ms.Aliza Alam, Mr.Tanmay Ahlawat
and Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs for
R-1.
Mr.Abhik Chimni, Ms.Pranjal Abrol,
Mr.Gurupal Singh, Ms.Moksha
Sharma and Mr.Ayan Dasgupta, Advs
for R-2 & 3.
47
+ LPA 258/2026 & CM APPLs. 23863-64/2026 & 23866/2026
ABC .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Rishabh Kapur and Mr.Tanmay
Gupta, Advs.
versus
INDIRA GANDHI DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FOR
WOMEN & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, SC with
Ms.Aliza Alam, Mr.Tanmay Ahlawat
and Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs for
R-1.
Signature Not Verified LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 1 of 16
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:16.04.2026
16:00:10
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 23767/2026 in LPA 256/2026
CM APPL. 23865/2026 in LPA 258/2026
1. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the
averments made in the instant applications, the applications are allowed and
the delay of 13 days in filing the appeals is condoned.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
LPA 256/2026 & CM APPLs. 23764-66/2026 & 23768/2026
LPA 258/2026 & CM APPLs. 23863-64/2026 & 23866/2026
3. The issue involved in these two intra-court appeals and the subject
matter thereof are intertwined and therefore, both the appeals have been
heard together and are being decided by the common judgment and order
which follows:
FACTS LEADING TO UNDERLYING CHALLENGE
4. Both the appeals concern themselves with the process of
recruitment/selection to the post of Assistant Professor in the disciplines of
(1) Information Technology and (2) Computer Science Engineering,
conducted by the respondent - University.
LPA 258/2026:
5. On 10.09.2021, the respondent - University issued a recruitment
notice (hereinafter referred to as the "Advertisement No. 1") for filling up
various teaching vacancies against the posts of Professor, Associate
Professor and Assistant Professor. In the discipline of Information
Technology, 04 vacancies were advertised, out of which 01 was unreserved,
02 were reserved for Scheduled Tribe and 01 was reserved for Other
Backward Classes. In the discipline of Computer Science Engineering, a
total number of 09 vacancies were advertised, out of which 04 were
unreserved, 01 was reserved for Scheduled Caste and 03 were reserved for
Other Backward Classes and 01 was reserved for the candidates belonging to
Economically Weaker Section. The advertisement also stipulated that two
posts of Assistant Professors are reserved for PwBD candidates and further
that candidate of any category i.e. UR/SC/ST/OBC/EWS may apply. The
advertisement also prescribed that for persons with benchmark disabilities,
reservation will be provided to persons suffering from the following
disabilities (i) blindness and low vision, (ii) deaf and hard of hearing; (iii)
locomotor disability, (iv) autism and intellectual disability, etc. and (v)
multiple disabilities from amongst these categories of disabled. The relevant
extract of the Advertisement No.1 is quoted hereunder:
―VACANCIES FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR* PAY
SCALE/ LEVEL : Rs.57,700 - 1,82,400 / Level-10, as per 7th CPC /UGC
Sl. Name of Category Total
No. Discipline UR* SC* ST* OBC* EWS*
Technology
Science
Engineering
Planning
Note:
1. The numbers of posts advertised are indicative and can be varied as per
the requirement of the University.
2. Abbreviations used are denoted as: UR-Unreserved, EWS-
Economically Weaker Section, SC - Scheduled Caste, ST- Scheduled
Tribe, OBC-Other Backward Classes, PwBD-Persons with Benchmark
Disabilities.
3. Two Posts of Assistant Professor are reserved for PwBD candidate.
Candidate of any category i.e( *UR/SC/ST/OBC/EWS) may apply.
4. For persons with benchmark disabilities, the reservation under clause
(a) to (e) is asunder:-
a) blindness and low vision;
b) deaf and hard of hearing;
c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism,
acid attacks victims and muscular dystrophy;
d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental
illness;
e) multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d)
including deaf-blindness, in the posts identified for each disabilities.
[Category of disability suitable/identified for appointments are (a) VH -
Visually Handicapped {PARTIALLY BLIND/LOW VISION-PB/LV}; (b)
DD - Deaf & Dumb {HEARING IMPAIRED-HH}; (c) AUTISM- Autism,
intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (c)
including deaf-blindness.‖
6. The appellant admittedly is a PwBD candidate and has locomotor
disability and as such in terms of the Advertisement No.1, he was entitled to
seek reservation available to PwBD category candidates. He applied against
the said advertisement for the post in the discipline of Information
Technology.
7. In the 14th meeting of the Board of Management of the respondent -
University held on 20.07.2021, a decision was taken at agenda item
no.14.11, which was to consider the guidelines and screening criteria, etc. to
be followed for direct recruitment for the posts of Assistant Professor,
Associate Professor and Professor. Accordingly, the Board of Management
approved the guidelines and screening criteria, etc., to be followed for direct
recruitment to the said posts. The guidelines approved by the Board of
Management in its meeting held on 20.07.2021 is known as "Recruitment
Document to the posts of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and
Professor in IGDTUW, Delhi" (hereinafter referred to as the "recruitment
document").
8. The recruitment document provides the procedure for submission of
application, procedure for selection, procedure for short listing of the
candidates, procedure to be followed for assignment of weightage/points for
academic record, research performance, composition of the Screening
Committee, procedure to be followed for final selection of candidates, etc.
According to the said recruitment document, candidates applying for the
posts of Assistant Professors are screened and on the basis of the criteria
fixed for screening, those who qualify are subjected to a presentation
followed by an interview. The Selection Committee thereafter considers the
respective merits of the candidates on the basis of various parameters and
accordingly, makes its recommendation for appointment. The recruitment
document, inter alia, provides that the minimum percentage of marks for
suitability for selection of a candidate shall be decided by the University;
however, in any case, it will not be less than 50%. The relevant clause of the
recruitment document is quoted hereunder:
―4. The minimum percentage of marks for the suitability of selection of
candidates for each discipline shall be decided by the University. However, in
any case, it will not be less than 50%.‖
9. The appellant was subjected to screening along with other eligible
candidates and, having been declared successful, was required to make his
presentation and he was also subjected to an interview. The Selection
Committee, in its meeting held on 11.07.2022, evaluated the respective merit
of the candidates on the basis of their performances in the selection process,
and recommended one Dr. Himanshu Mittal (respondent no.2 in LPA
258/2026).
10. The appellant instituted W.P.(C) 7226/2023, challenging the
recommendation made by the Selection Committee held on 11.07.2022,
whereby the petitioner was not recommended for appointment in the PwBD
category, whereas Dr. Himanshu Mittal was recommended for appointment.
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide
impugned judgment dated 19.02.2026.
11. An advertisement was issued on 27.02.2023 by the respondent -
University (hereinafter referred to as the "Advertisement No. 2") for
recruitment for filling up various teaching positions in the University,
including the vacancies for the post of Assistant Professor in the disciplines
of (1) Information Technology and (2) Computer Science Engineering. As
per the stipulation made in the Advertisement No. 2, 03 posts of Assistant
Professors were reserved for PwBD category candidates. The relevant
extracts of the Advertisement No. 2, dated 27.02.2023 is extracted herein
below:
―[VACANCIES FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR'| IACADEMIC
PAY SCALE/ LEVEL : Rs.57,700 -1,82,400 / Level-10, as per 7" CPC /UGC]
Sl. Name of Discipline Category Total
No. UR* SC* ST* OBC* EWS*
Technology
2. Architecture A & P -- -- -- 02 --
Planning Plan
Engineering
Note: 20 vacancies as backlog of the last recruitment (OBC-14, ST-4, SC-2) in
all teaching posts (Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor).
Note:
1. The numbers of posts advertised are indicative and can be varied as per the
requirement of the University.
2. Three Posts out of Assistant Professor posts are reserved for PwBD, candidate
of any category i.e.(*UR/SC/ST/OBC/EWS ) may apply.
3. Abbreviations used are denoted as: UR-Unreserved, EWS- Economically
Weaker Section, SC - Scheduled Caste, ST- Scheduled Tribe, OBC-Other
Backward Classes, PWBD-Persons with Benchmark Disabilities.
4. For persons with benchmark disabilities, the reservation under clause (a) to
(e) is asunder:-
(a) Blindness and low vision;
(b)Deaf and hard of hearing;
(c) Locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid
attacks victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) Autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness;
(e) Multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including
deaf blindness, in the posts identified for each disabilities.
[Category of disability suitable/identified for appointments are (a) VH - Visually
Handicapped {Partially Blind/Low Vision-PB/LV}; (b) DD -- Deaf & Dumb
{Hearing Impaired-HH}; (c) AUTISM- Autism, intellectual disability, specific
learning disability and mental illness; multiple disabilities from amongst persons
under clauses (a) to (c) including deaf-blindness.‖
12. The appellant being eligible for recruitment to the post of Assistant
Professor in both these disciplines, applied under the PwBD category. He
cleared the screening test and accordingly made his presentation and also
appeared in the interview. On the basis of the overall performance of the
respective candidates, the Selection Committee considered the candidatures
for evaluating their respective merits, in its meeting held on 14.12.2023. On
the basis of various parameters, such as academic record, experience and
research, assessment of teaching aptitude and ability, assessment of domain
and interview performance, the Selection Committee found none of the
candidates suitable for the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of
Information Technology.
13. So far as the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Computer
Science Engineering is concerned, the Selection Committee, in this
discipline as well, found that none of the candidates was suitable for the
post.
14. As per the score card, the appellant in the discipline of Information
Technology had scored 38 marks, whereas for the post in the discipline of
Computer Science Engineering, he had scored 37 marks.
15. Since none of the candidates, including the appellant, had secured
50% benchmark for adjudging a candidate suitable for appointment to the
post in question, the Selection Committee recommended that none of the
candidates was found suitable for appointment. The appellant, being
aggrieved by his non-selection pursuant to the Advertisement No. 2 as well,
instituted the proceedings of W.P.(C) 4224/2024, which was clubbed with
the earlier writ petition filed by him, namely, W.P.(C) 7226/2023. These are
the two writ petitions which have been dismissed by the learned Single
Judge by the impugned judgment, which is under challenge herein.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
16. Learned counsel representing the appellant in both these appeals has
vehemently argued that the stipulation, as available in the recruitment
document which prescribes 50% marks as threshold or benchmark for
adjudging the suitability of the candidates, was not prescribed at the time of
issuance of both the advertisements, which according to was introduced after
the advertisements were issued and therefore, non-selection of the appellant
on the ground that he did not secure the threshold marks of 50% is vitiated
for the reason that said introduction of threshold marks amounts to changing
the "rules of the game after it has started".
17. Heavily relying on the judgment in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v.
High Court of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1, which is a Constitution Bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been vehemently argued by learned counsel
for the appellant that the said Constitution Bench judgment clearly lays
down the legal principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed once
the game starts and such principle is applicable not only in respect of
prescription of eligibility criteria but also in respect of procedure for
selection.
18. Based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash
Pathak (supra), it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the
introduction of threshold marks of 50% for adjudging the suitability of the
candidates after the recruitment process had started, is impermissible in law
and therefore, the selection conducted by the respondents for the posts in
question is illegal.
19. It is also the case of the appellant, as put forth by learned counsel
representing the appellant, that prescription of 50% benchmark or threshold
for adjudging the suitability of the candidate for appointment to the post in
question is missing in the advertisement and therefore, any such prescription
could not have been taken into account by the Selection Committee while
making its recommendation which resulted in non-selection of the appellant
and a declaration that none of the candidates were found suitable. The
emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the benchmark of
50% for adjudging the suitability of the candidate could have been applied
by the Selection Committee only if such a prescription was made part of the
advertisement and having not done so, the respondent - University
proceeded with the selection, which is erroneous and any recommendation
made on the basis of such erroneous selection process, is liable to be struck
down.
20. Referring to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "RPwD Act"), learned counsel for
the appellant has argued that the process of selection adopted by the
respondent - University has resulted in defeating the right of the appellant,
who admittedly is a person of benchmark disability and is eligible for
appointment to the post in question in all respects. The submission in this
regard is that an able bodied candidate was appointed ignoring the claim of
the appellant.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
21. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent - University
and the counsel representing the respondent no.2 in LPA 258/2026, have
opposed the intra-court appeals and have submitted in unison that in the
facts of the case, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, which
is under appeal herein, cannot be faulted with. It has been argued by them
that the recruitment document, which embodies the guidelines for
recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and
Professor in the respondent - University was approved by the Board of
Management in its meeting held on 20.07.2021 and the procedure given
therein has been meticulously followed. It has also been stated that so far as
the selection made pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 is concerned, the
appellant had secured 37.2% marks on the basis of overall assessment made
by the Selection Committee, which is much below the threshold or the
benchmark for adjudging the suitability of a candidate, being 50% and
therefore, he was not recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor in Information Technology. It has also been argued that one
candidate belonging to unreserved category, namely Dr. Himanshu Mittal
(respondent no.3 in LPA 258/2026), had secured 65.4% marks, which was
much above the threshold of 50% and therefore, he was recommended and
accordingly appointed against one post of Assistant Professor in Information
Technology. It has also been submitted that one post meant for PwBD was
carried forward for recruitment in the next recruitment year and was
included in Advertisement No.2.
22. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that
the advertisements which are issued for recruitment give general information
to the candidates including the eligibility criteria, etc., however, merely
because the decision taken by the Board of Management of the respondent -
University in its meeting held on 20.07.2021, where the recruitment
document was approved, was not made part of the advertisement, will not
vitiate the selection process, if the guidelines contained in the recruitment
document have been followed.
23. It is also argued on behalf of the respondents that the RPwD Act has
not been violated in any manner for the reason that adequate provision for
reservation to the PwBD candidate was provided in the advertisement, and
eligible candidates belonging to the said category were also subjected to the
selection process. The submission, thus, on behalf of the respondents, is that
the appeals ought to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
24. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the documents available before us on these appeals, we find that
both the appeals merit rejection for the following reasons:
A. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
appellant to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash
Pathak (supra) is concerned, there cannot be any quarrel about the
legal principle laid down therein, according to which the
norms/principles/rules applicable in a recruitment process cannot be
changed once the process starts even in respect of the norms prescribed
for adjudging the suitability of the candidates. The judgment in Tej
Prakash Pathak (supra) clearly lays down that prescription not only in
respect of eligibility but also in respect of suitability cannot be changed
or altered in any manner once the recruitment process starts by issuance
of advertisement. However, the facts which are not in dispute in this
case clearly establish that the norms for adjudging the suitability
available in the recruitment document were in existence prior to
issuance of both the advertisements for the reason that the said
norms/guidelines for adjudging the suitability which forms part of the
recruitment document were approved by the Board of Management of
the respondent - University in its 14th meeting held on 20.07.2021.
B. It is only that the prescription relating to 50% threshold or
benchmark for adjudging the suitability was not made part of the
advertisement; however, in our opinion, its absence in the
advertisement will not vitiate the selection process if the Selection
Committee has taken into consideration such a prescription for
adjudging the suitability of the candidates during the process of
selection. It is, in fact, not a case where the norms or parameters for
adjudging the suitability has been changed after issuance of the
advertisements, rather it is a case where the prescription relating to 50%
benchmark/threshold for adjudging the suitability of the candidates for
appointment to the posts in question were already in existence. The
Advertisement No. 1, as already noted above, was issued on 10.09.2021
and the Advertisement No. 2 was issued on 27.02.2023, whereas the
norms of 50% benchmark for adjudging the suitability was in existence
since the decision was taken by the Board of Management of the
University in its meeting held on 20.07.2021. Thus, it is clearly not a
case where the parameters or norms for adjudging the suitability have
been changed after the initiation of the recruitment process and
therefore, for this reason, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) does not help the cause of the appellant.
C. We have already noticed that the advertisements did not contain
the prescription regarding 50% threshold/benchmark for adjudging the
suitability of the candidates; however, it is not denied that such a
prescription was available even before the Advertisement No. 1 was
issued. The existence of the recruitment document with effect from the
date of the meeting of the Board of Management i.e. w.e.f. 20.07.2021
has not been denied by the appellant. What has been attempted to stress
upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the said document
was brought on record only in W.P.(C) 4224/2024 which challenged the
selection process adopted by the respondent - University pursuant to
Advertisement No. 2 and the same was not brought on record of this
Court in W.P.(C) 7226/2023 which was filed earlier in point of time
wherein challenge was to the selection process undertaken by the
respondent pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1. The doubt cast, for
the said reason, on the recruitment document, in our opinion is
absolutely misplaced and is based merely on unfounded apprehensions.
The respondent - University is a Government University having been
created/ incorporated under Delhi Act No. 9 of 2012, and therefore, the
doubts expressed by learned counsel for the appellant about the
recruitment document, in our opinion, is not acceptable. The
respondent - University is a public university, having been incorporated
under State Legislature and therefore, such doubt may not be cast on the
respondent - University merely because the recruitment document was
not placed on record in W.P.(C) 7226/2023, which was filed at an
earlier point in time.
D. We find ourselves in agreement with the submissions made by
learned counsel representing the respondent - University that any
advertisement issued for recruitment to a post, generally contains all
relevant information including the criteria for determining the eligibility
of the candidates which enables the eligible candidates to participate in
the selection process; however, minor details such as the process of
selection to be followed by the Selection Committee, etc., if absent in
the advertisement, will not vitiate the selection process.
E. As far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant
that the manner in which the selection in question have been undertaken
by the respondent - University defeats rights of persons with
benchmark disabilities is concerned, we may observe that no specific
provision under the RPwD Act has been pointed out by the appellant
which can be said to have been infringed in any manner. It is to be
noticed that the RPwD Act prescribes statutorily a provision for
providing reservation to PwBD, which in this case was provided and
declared at the time of advertisement itself. It is also on record that the
eligible candidates, including the appellant belonging to the PwBD
category, were allowed to participate in the selection process; however,
if the PwBD category candidates could not secure the threshold or
benchmark prescribed for adjudging the suitability of the candidates,
we do not find any infringement of any of the provisions of the RPwD
Act. In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any
good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed
by learned Single Judge.
F. Further, we may also note that the matter relating to alleged
infringement of the provisions of PwD Act was taken up by the
appellant before the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities, GNCTD which, vide its order dated 27.01.2023, decided
the issue by opining that ―there appears to be discrimination against
complainant and because of various reasons as explained by
respondent University to the Court about the transparency of the
process of selection and low score of the complainant seem to be the
only issue, but as per the selection criteria maintained by University, no
suitable candidate was selected in the academic session 2021-22.
However, the University confirmed that the vacancies for the person
with disabilities are being carried forward in the current academic year
i.e. 2023 and there will be three (03) vacancies now for the persons
with disabilities and the complainant may apply again for the same.‖
25. Resultantly, the appeals fail, which are hereby dismissed. The
pending applications also stand disposed of.
26. However, there will be no order as to costs.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
ANISH DAYAL, J
APRIL 13, 2026
"shailndra"
