Delhi High Court – Orders
Dr Manu Banga vs Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical … on 19 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & CM APPL. 28187/2023
DR MANU BANGA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rishabh Kapur and Mr. Tanmay
Gupta, Advocates.
versus
INDIRA GANDHI DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FOR
WOMEN & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for
GNCTD Services with Mr. N.K.
Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for R-
1.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. M.S.
Akhtar, Advocates for R-1, 2.
Mr. Rahat Bonsal and Mr. Dhruv
Gupta, Advocates for R-2.
Prof. Brijesh Kumar, Registrar.
Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Pranjal Abrol,
Mr. Gurupal Singh, Mr. Ayan
Dasgupta and Ms. Moksha Sharma,
Advocates for R-2 & 3.
+ W.P.(C) 4224/2024
DR. MANU BANGA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rishabh Kapur and Mr. Tanmay
Gupta, Advocates.
versus
INDIRA GANDHI DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FOR
WOMEN .....Respondent
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for
GNCTD Services with Mr. N.K.
Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for R-
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 1 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
1.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. M.S.
Akhtar, Advocates for R-1, 2.
Mr. Rahat Bonsal and Mr. Dhruv
Gupta, Advocates for R-2.
Prof. Brijesh Kumar, Registrar.
Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Pranjal Abrol,
Mr. Gurupal Singh, Mr. Ayan
Dasgupta and Ms. Moksha Sharma,
Advocates for R-2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 19.02.2026
1. The Petitioner, a person with benchmark disability, participated in
two recruitment exercises conducted by Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical
University for Women for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in
two disciplines, Information Technology and Computer Science and
Engineering. The challenge in W.P.(C) 7226/2023 relates to the recruitment
advertisement dated 10th September, 20211. The challenge in W.P.(C)
4224/2024 arises from the recruitment advertisement dated 27th February,
20232.
2. In the 2021 recruitment process, the Petitioner applied for Information
Technology and in the 2023 recruitment process, the Petitioner applied for
both Information Technology and Computer Science and Engineering. The
Petitioner remained unsuccessful on both occasions. Under the
Advertisement of 2021, the candidate selected was Respondent No. 2 (Dr
1
“Advertisement of 2021”
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 2 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
Himanshu Mittal), who has since resigned. That resignation is not in dispute.
Under the Advertisement of 2023, the selected candidates are Respondents
No. 2 and 3. In that background, the dispute concerning the Advertisement
of 2021 appears to have lost practical significance, particularly after a fresh
recruitment has been conducted under the Advertisement of 2023 in which
the Petitioner again participated, and appointments have been made.
3. The central grievance in both petitions concerns the manner in which
the Respondent University conducted the selection, which the Petitioner
alleges violates the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 3 and is
further vitiated on account of an opaque revision or application of selection
criteria.
The relevant facts
4. The Petitioner asserts he has a locomotive benchmark disability and
has been certified with 79% permanent disability in the right upper limb.
The Petitioner relies upon academic qualifications, including a Ph.D., and
qualifications such as GATE and UGC NET. He also asserts prior teaching
experience as an Assistant Professor at University level and relies upon
publications, authored books, and registered patents.
5. The status of the Petitioner as a PwBD candidate is not in dispute. It is
also common ground that reservation for persons with benchmark
disabilities is required to be provided in terms of the applicable statutory
framework.
6. Under the Advertisement of 2023, the recruitment process comprised
three stages. First, an initial written examination of qualifying character.
2
“Advertisement of 2023”
3
“RPwD Act”
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 3 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
Thereafter, eligible candidates were assessed through a classroom
presentation and evaluation of domain knowledge, followed by an interview.
7. The vacancies for the disciplines, as reflected in the recruitment
notice, were as follows:
VACANCY FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR:
S. Name of Category Total
Discipline
No. UR SC ST OBC EWS
1. Information 02 01 02 02 03 10
Technology
3. Computer 04 -- -- -- -- 04
Science
Engineering
8. Thus 23 vacancies were advertised across disciplines, and three
vacancies were reserved horizontally for PwBD candidates across
categories.
9. The Respondent University relies on an approved 100-point
assessment framework, which allocates 50 points to academic record and
experience, and 50 points to teaching aptitude, domain knowledge, and
interview performance. It is stated that, while the minimum eligibility
enables participation, the final selection depends on comparative assessment
and the determination of “suitability” by the duly constituted Selection
Committee.
10. The record reveals that the Selection Committee meetings were held
on 14th December, 2023 (Information Technology) and 22nd December, 2023W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 4 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
(Computer Science and Engineering) for the General-PwBD category. Three
candidates, including the Petitioner, appeared in each discipline, and none
was found suitable. The Respondent University further relies on the
Petitioner’s scorecard and the stipulation that, in any event, the minimum
suitability threshold would not be below 50%. On that footing, the Petitioner
was not recommended for appointment and the PwBD vacancies, to the
extent unfilled, were carried forward.
11. The Respondent University states that the Selection Committee
evaluated the Petitioner under the notified 100-point framework. The
scorecards placed on record by the University reflect that in Information
Technology, the Petitioner secured 17.4 out of 30 under Academic Record, 6
out of 20 under Experience and Research Performance, 5 out of 15 for
Teaching Aptitude and Ability, 4 out of 10 for Domain Knowledge, and 6
out of 25 in the interview, aggregating to 38 out of 100. In Computer
Science and Engineering, he secured 17.4 out of 30 under Academic Record,
6 out of 20 under Experience and Research Performance, 6 out of 15 for
Teaching Aptitude and Ability, 3 out of 10 for Domain Knowledge, and 5
out of 25 in the interview, aggregating to 37 out of 100.
12. The University relies on the recruitment document to state that, while
the discipline-wise minimum suitability benchmark is to be determined by
the University, it cannot be below 50%. Proceeding on that footing, and on
the Committee’s assessment that none of the PwBD applicants met the
suitability threshold for the posts in question, no candidate was
recommended under the General-PwBD category for the concerned
disciplines, and the unfilled PwBD vacancies were carried forward.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 5 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
13. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Respondent University
failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the RPwD Act and
unlawfully declined to fill PwBD reserved posts, despite the Petitioner being
available and having participated in the process.
14. It is urged that, although three PwBD posts were reserved across
disciplines under the Advertisement of 2023, only one PwBD candidate was
selected (in the Department of Management) and the remaining reserved
vacancies were carried forward. According to the Petitioner, this has become
a pattern since the enactment of the RPwD Act, with reserved posts being
left unfilled under the label of “non-availability of a suitable candidate”,
without any disclosed and verifiable standards.
15. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent University did not
disclose any defined parameters to determine “suitability”, did not prescribe
any cut-off in the advertisement, and did not place on record minutes
demonstrating a rational basis for branding the Petitioner “unsuitable”. The
Petitioner also relies on a representation by email dated 7 th December, 2023
asserting that a journal publication was wrongly disregarded as non-Scopus
indexed despite being reflected in UGC CARE/recognised databases, and
complains that the representation was not answered.
16. Reliance is placed on Section 34(2) of the RPwD Act to contend that
carry forward is permissible only once, and that, in the succeeding
recruitment year, the employer must first attempt interchange among the
categories of benchmark disabilities. Only if no person with disability is
available even after interchange, can the vacancy be filled by appointment of
a person other than a person with disability. The Petitioner submits that the
Respondent University has acted contrary to this statutory sequence and, by
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 6 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
not filling PwBD reserved posts while appointing able-bodied candidates to
unreserved posts, has defeated the legislative mandate.
17. The Petitioner also alleges arbitrariness and non-disclosure of relevant
information such as cut-offs, details of selected candidates, prior PwBD
appointments, and records of earlier recruitment exercises. It is urged that
the selection suffers from unreasonableness and violates Articles 14, 19, and
21.
18. A specific objection is taken to the Respondent’s reliance on a
document (Annexure R-2)4 prescribing qualifying marks, with the
submission that it was never incorporated in the recruitment advertisement,
was not placed in the public domain, and cannot be pressed into service after
the process to justify the outcome.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent University
19. On behalf of the Respondent University, it is contended that the
selection process is the domain of subject experts and is not amenable to
judicial re-evaluation absent mala fides, bias, or patent illegality. The
Petitioner, having participated without protest, cannot challenge the
recruitment procedure after being unsuccessful.
20. It is submitted that the Selection Committee was constituted in terms
of the University Statutes and comprised the Vice-Chancellor, the
appropriate nominee of the GNCTD, internal academic representatives,
external experts, and a representative for reserved categories including
PwBD. The Respondent University contends that a structured marking
scheme was followed, and the Committee found that none of the PwBD
4
“document indicating recruitment process to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 7 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
applicants who appeared in Information Technology and Computer Science
and Engineering met the suitability threshold.
21. The Respondent University asserts full compliance with Section 34(2)
of the RPwD Act. It is stated that PwBD vacancies were advertised in 2021
and 2023, interchange was considered, no suitable PwBD candidate was
available in 2021, and one PwBD candidate was selected in 2023
(Department of Management), with the remainder carried forward as
contemplated by the statute. It is also contended that Section 34(2) does not
mandate the disclosure of reasons to an unsuccessful candidate.
22. Reliance is placed upon decisions emphasising that courts do not sit in
appeal over assessments made by expert selection committees, including
Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir5and Dalpat Abasaheb
Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan6.
23. Further reliance is placed on Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi,7
to contend that a candidate who participates in a selection process without
protest cannot subsequently assail its procedure. Reliance is also placed on
Tarun Kataria v. Union of India8 to contend that recruiting bodies are not
obliged to fill vacancies if suitable candidates are not found.
Submissions on behalf of the selected candidates
24. Counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that they were selected
through a valid and objective process, were issued offer letters in January
2024, and were confirmed upon completion of probation by order dated 11 th
September, 2025.
Professor in the University”
5
2023 SCC OnLine SC 344
6
(1990) 1 SCC 305
7
(2013) 11 SCC 309W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 8 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
25. It is urged that Section 34 of the RPwD Act protects reservation for
“suitable” persons with benchmark disability and does not create an
automatic right to appointment upon meeting threshold eligibility. The
distinction between “eligibility” and “suitability” is emphasised, with the
submission that suitability is a qualitative assessment to be made by subject
experts through the prescribed evaluative framework. Reliance is placed on
the principle that recruiting bodies cannot be compelled to fill all posts if
suitable candidates are not available.
26. It is further contended that the Petitioner is estopped from challenging
the recruitment procedure after participation, and reliance is placed on
decisions including Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar9 and Karan Singh
Meena v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court10 to submit that a candidate
cannot approbate and reprobate.
27. An additional objection is raised alleging suppression of a prior order
dated 27th January, 2023 passed by the State Commissioner for Persons with
Disabilities, NCT of Delhi, which, it is stated, found no discrimination in the
2021 recruitment and attributed non-selection to low scoring, including low
marks in teaching aptitude.
28. It is contended that, in the absence of pleaded and proved mala fides,
the appointments of Respondents No. 2 and 3 should not be disturbed, and
that the Petitioner seeks, in substance, a re-assessment of comparative merit,
which lies outside writ review.
Analysis
8
W.P.(C) 7560/ 2018
9
(2017) 4 SCC 357
10
2022 SCC OnLine Del 3098
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 9 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
29. The two petitions stem from the same grievance. The Petitioner
complains that vacancies reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities
(PwBD) in IGDTUW have remained unfilled, and that he, being a PwBD
candidate satisfies the prescribed eligibility conditions, ought to have been
selected. Both petitions turn on the same statutory framework, the same
recruitment framework, and the same allegation that the University adopted
an arbitrary approach while assessing “suitability”. They can, therefore, be
decided on a common line of reasoning. To the extent W.P.(C) 7226/2023
pertains to the earlier recruitment cycle, subsequent developments have
rendered the principal relief, namely the challenge to the appointment of the
selected candidate, infructuous. The underlying issues, which still require
examination, are addressed while considering the challenge to the
subsequent recruitment cycle, assailed on nearly identical grounds.
30. The dispute raises three questions.
(i) what is the permissible scope of judicial review over recruitment to
academic posts, where suitability is assessed by an expert body;
(ii) whether the Respondent University has complied with the mandate of
Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, including
the sequence prescribed by Section 34(2) for carry-forward, interchange and
eventual filling of PwBD vacancies, and whether any breach is made out on
the facts of the present case; and
(iii) whether the selection process is vitiated by unfairness, including (a) the
competence of the University, through its prescribed bodies, to frame and
apply suitability benchmarks and criteria, (b) whether such criteria were
applied uniformly and with adequate prior notice, and (c) whether the
Petitioner has been subjected to discrimination or arbitrary treatment.
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 10 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
Limits of judicial review in selections to academic posts
31. Appointments to university teaching posts are matters of academic
assessment. In writ jurisdiction, the Court does not rework interview marks,
reassess subject competence, or substitute its view of merit for that of a duly
constituted selection committee. The Court’s concern is with legality and
procedural fairness. Interference is justified only where the process is shown
to be tainted by mala fides, extraneous considerations, a manifestly irrational
approach, or breach of binding rules.
The recruitment architecture and the “minimum suitability” standard
32. The recruitment framework placed on record includes the
“Recruitment Document” for appointment to Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor and Professor at IGDTUW. It sets out, in a structured manner, the
stages of scrutiny, screening, presentation, and interview.
33. For Assistant Professor, the scheme proceeds on these essentials.
(i) Applications are scrutinised for eligibility.
(ii) There is a screening test, with a defined exemption route for candidates
holding a Ph.D. in the relevant branch, subject to publications in prescribed
categories.
(iii) Candidates who clear the screening stage (or are exempted) are assessed
on Academic Record and Experience and Research Performance through a
screening committee, using the point-based tables.
(iv) Teaching aptitude is assessed by a presentation committee.
(v) Final evaluation is undertaken by the selection committee which
considers the screening component, the presentation component, domain
knowledge, and interview performance, with specified weightages.
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 11 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
34. The “Recruitment Document” also contains a provision of direct
relevance to the Petitioner’s argument. Under the heading “Selection
Committee”, point 4 records that the minimum percentage of marks for
suitability shall be decided by the University, but “in any case, it will not be
less than 50%”. That stipulation has two consequences. First, it recognises
that selection is not automatic merely because candidates are called for
interview. Second, it permits the committee to recommend no one if none
reaches the suitability threshold. A reservation roster does not dilute this
requirement. Reservation ensures access to consideration. It does not compel
appointment of a candidate who does not meet the minimum suitability
benchmark fixed for the post.
35. The Petitioner’s grievance about PwBD vacancies remaining unfilled
cannot be divorced from the recruitment design which makes “suitability” a
pre-condition to selection. This is not a case where the Petitioner was shut
out at the threshold, or denied consideration under the PwBD channel. He
was called for the further stages in both disciplines and was assessed on each
component that the recruitment document prescribes: academic record and
experience (Table A and Table B), teaching aptitude through presentation,
domain knowledge, and interview. The Petitioner secured 38 out of 100 in
Information Technology and 37 out of 100 in Computer Science and
Engineering. Both scores fall materially short of the minimum suitability
level, which the recruitment document stipulates cannot be below 50%. In
these circumstances, a mandamus to appoint would not be a correction of
illegality. It would be a direction to disregard the University’s own binding
suitability threshold and to treat a candidate assessed below that threshold as
selected. Writ jurisdiction does not stretch that far.
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 12 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
The statutory scheme under Section 34: Reservation and the discipline of
carry-forward
36. Section 34 of the RPwD Act creates a statutory reservation for
persons with benchmark disabilities in every “establishment”. The
reservation is horizontal. It does not operate as a separate vertical
compartment. It operates by earmarking a specified number of vacancies in
the overall recruitment for PwBD candidates and then adjusting those
vacancies against the social category to which the selected PwBD candidate
belongs.
37. The Petitioner places emphasis on Section 34(2), which addresses
what the establishment must do if a PwBD vacancy cannot be filled. The
sequence prescribed by Parliament is deliberate.
(i) If, in a recruitment year, a PwBD vacancy cannot be filled due to non-
availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability, it shall be carried
forward to the succeeding recruitment year.
(ii) If, in the succeeding year also, no suitable person with benchmark
disability is available, the vacancy must first be filled by interchange among
the specified categories of benchmark disabilities.
(iii) Only if, even after such interchange, no suitable person with
benchmark disability is available for the post, can the vacancy be filled by
appointment of a person other than a person with disability.
38. This mechanism reflects two legislative choices. First, the statute
insists that PwBD reservation is not to be defeated casually. It mandates a
second attempt in the succeeding recruitment year and then requires
interchange before the vacancy can move outside the disability pool.
Secondly, the statute does not mandate appointment at any cost. Section
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 13 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
34(2) is triggered by “non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark
disability”. The text itself recognises that suitability is a distinct requirement
and that reservation cannot be read as a command to appoint an unsuitable
candidate merely to ensure that a vacancy is not carried forward.
39. Section 34(2), therefore, performs a roster function. It regulates how
an unfilled PwBD vacancy is to be treated and the order in which options
must be exhausted. It does not confer an individual right upon a particular
candidate to be appointed regardless of the suitability assessment made
under the governing recruitment framework. Put differently, the Act reserves
vacancies, not the minimum standard required for the post.
40. The carry-forward clause also cannot be read as mandate to keep
posts in limbo indefinitely. Section 34(2) expects closure by the succeeding
cycle through one of three routes: filling by a suitable PwBD candidate,
filling by interchange, or, if no PwBD candidate is available even after
interchange, filling by a non-PwBD candidate. That statutory framework
carries an institutional obligation: the establishment must maintain a clear
record, year to year, of how the PwBD vacancy was dealt with and why. If
the record reveals repeated roll-over without application of mind to the
sequence mandated by Section 34(2), the court may issue corrective
directions to ensure faithful compliance in future cycles. That, however, is a
different remedy from the one the Petitioner seeks.
41. Even if the Petitioner’s argument is taken at its highest and one
assumes that the University ought to have expressly demonstrated
consideration of interchange at the relevant stage, the consequence would
not be automatic appointment of the Petitioner. The statutory route only
requires the establishment to make the vacancy available within the
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 14 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
disability pool in the manner Section 34(2) prescribes, and then fill it with a
person who is found suitable under the recruitment framework. It cannot be
used as a lever to compel selection of a candidate whose assessed aggregate
remains below the minimum suitability threshold fixed for the post.
Was there a change of rules midstream or a lack of notice
42. The Petitioner contends that undisclosed criteria were applied and that
the standards now relied upon were not available to candidates at the time of
application. The Petitioner contends that the minimum suitability
requirement and the marking framework were not part of the recruitment
advertisement dated 27th February, 2023 and, therefore, could not be relied
upon. He further submits that the clause stating that the minimum
percentage “shall not be less than 50%” does not, by itself, constitute a
benchmark, and leaves the field open-ended.
43. The submission does not merit acceptance. An advertisement is
intended to notify vacancies and prescribe minimum eligibility. It is not, and
is rarely intended to be, a complete code of evaluation. Public universities
routinely conduct recruitment through the advertisement read with the
governing recruitment rules or recruitment documents already approved and
in force. The requirement under Article 14 is that the criteria which govern
selection must be traceable to an authorised source, must exist prior to
commencement of the process, and must be applied uniformly. It is not a
legal requirement that every evaluative detail be reproduced in the
advertisement itself.
44. Moreover, the record does not support the suggestion of an
unstructured or improvised selection. The process proceeded under the
Recruitment Document, which delineates the committees, the stages of
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 15 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
assessment, the weightages, and the minimum suitability threshold of 50%.
This is not a post-result invention. It is part of the selection criteria. The
committee’s task, therefore, is not to fill a vacancy at all costs, but to
recommend only those who cross the suitability threshold.
45. The “not less than 50%” clause is also not as indeterminate as the
Petitioner suggests. It does two things. First, it sets a binding floor: no
discipline can prescribe a suitability benchmark below 50%. Secondly, it
authorises the University to decide the discipline-wise benchmark, which
may be 50% or higher, depending on the demands of the discipline and the
quality of the field. In other words, the benchmark is not absent; the
framework is that the benchmark is to be fixed discipline-wise, subject to an
express statutory minimum. That design is neither unusual nor unlawful in
faculty recruitment, where the same post title across disciplines may still
demand different levels of depth and specialisation.
46. Once this is appreciated, the legally relevant enquiry is not whether
the benchmark was mentioned verbatim in the advertisement, but whether
the University had fixed a discipline-wise suitability benchmark before
interviews were held, and whether it was applied consistently to all
candidates. If a benchmark was fixed in advance and applied uniformly, the
process does not become vulnerable merely because the advertisement did
not reproduce it.
47. In the present case, the University relies on a pre-existing recruitment
document which contains the 50% floor and a structured 100-point
evaluation framework, and further asserts that the Selection Committee
found all PwBD applicants in the two concerned disciplines unsuitable, with
the Petitioner’s aggregate falling materially below 50%. The Petitioner has
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 16 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
not established that the discipline-wise benchmark was fixed after the event,
or that it was applied differently to different candidates. Absent such a
showing, the contention that the “not less than 50%” clause is too open-
textured to be applied cannot be accepted.
48. The Petitioner applied for appointment as Assistant Professor in two
disciplines, Information Technology and Computer Science and
Engineering, under the PwBD category. He was not screened out at the
threshold. He cleared the route prescribed by the recruitment framework and
was called to the final stage in both disciplines. That circumstance is
significant because the gravamen of the petition is not exclusion from
consideration but the assessment of suitability at the end of the process.
Further, as per record, the Petitioner’s aggregate score was materially below
the minimum suitability criteria contemplated by the recruitment framework.
In that factual setting, the court cannot, by mandamus, direct appointment.
Such a direction would compel the University to treat Petitioner as
“suitable” when the expert committee has assessed him below the minimum
benchmark. Judicial review does not extend to rewriting that condition or to
overriding an expert determination in the absence of mala fides, perversity,
or breach of a binding rule.
Conclusion
49. The Petitioner was considered under the PwBD category in both
disciplines. The selection architecture permitted, and in fact required,
selection only upon achieving at least 50% suitability benchmark. The
Petitioner did not meet the same. No case of mala fides, perversity, or
violation of a binding rule is made out so as to justify judicial interference.
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 17 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
50. In view of the above, the petitions are dismissed along with pending
application(s).
SANJEEV NARULA, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2026
as
W.P.(C) 7226/2023 & W.P.(C) 4224/2024 Page 18 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 20:31:18
