Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on 11.09.2025
DR SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Swarup, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Shivendra Singh & Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Advocates for R-
1.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for GNCTD
Mr. B.S. Rawat, CI DTTE for R-2.
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT
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
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 petitioner submitted applications for all three posts, but the present writ petition pertains only to the petitioner’s application for the post of
5. The qualifications mentioned in the said advertisement for the post of Registrar were as follows: “7. Educations and other qualification required for direct recruits Educational Qualification: Master’s degree with at least 55% of the 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 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
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 vires[1];”
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&K[2], Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar[3], Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi[4], and Mohd. Mustafa v. Union of India[5].
15. In Ramesh Chandra Shah, the Court observed as follows, upon a consideration of the earlier authorities:
16. The aforesaid judgment was, inter alia, cited in Mohd. Mustafa, with the following observations:
(2013) 11 SCC 309; [hereinafter as “Ramesh Chandra Shah”]. (2022) 1 SCC 294; [hereinafter as “Mohd. Mustafa”].
prejudice only when he was not recommended. The judgment in Madan Lal[7] refers to an earlier decision of this Court in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla[8], 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 Bihar[9], 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.