LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 1 of 16

$~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.

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 2 of 16

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

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 3 of 16

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.

No.

Name of

Discipline

Category Total

UR* SC* ST* OBC* EWS*

1. Information

Technology

01 -- 02 01 -- 04

2. Computer

Science

Engineering

04 01 -- 03 01 09

3. Architecture and

Planning

-- 01 -- 03 -- 04

4. Physics -- -- -- 01 -- 01

5. Chemistry -- 01 -- -- -- 01

Total Posts 05 03 02 08 01 19

Note:

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 4 of 16

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 14

th

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

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 5 of 16

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

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 6 of 16

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.

LPA 256/2026

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.

No.

Name of Discipline Category Total

UR* SC* ST* OBC* EWS*

1. Information

Technology

02 01 02 02 03 10

2. Architecture

and

A & P -- -- -- 02 --

04 M. -- 01 -- 01 --

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 7 of 16

Planning Plan

3. Computer Science

Engineering

04 -- -- -- -- 04

4. Management 03 01 -- 01 -- 05

Total Posts 09 03 02 06 03 23

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

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 8 of 16

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

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 9 of 16

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

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 10 of 16

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

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 11 of 16

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

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 12 of 16

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.

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 13 of 16

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

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 14 of 16

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

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 15 of 16

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

LPA 256/2026 & LPA 258/2026 Page 16 of 16

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”