LPA 476/2025 Page 1 of 25

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 28

th

JANUARY, 2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

+ LPA 476/2025 & CM APPL. 45645/2025, CM APPL. 45646/2025

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Mr. Sanjeet

Kumar, Mr. Shiv Chopra and Ms.

Shweta Singh, Advocates.

versus

ROSHAN ARA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Shamshad, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Mr. Syed

Hamza Ghayour and Ms. Zev Hasan,

Advocates for R-1 to R-4.

+ LPA 477/2025 & CM APPL. 45648/2025, CM APPL. 45649/2025

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Mr. Sanjeet

Kumar, Mr. Shiv Chopra and Ms.

Shweta Singh, Advocates.

versus

ROSHAN ARA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Shamshad, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Mr. Syed

Hamza Ghayour and Ms. Zev Hasan,

Advocates for R-1 to R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

JUDGMENT

LPA 476/2025 Page 2 of 25

(SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD J.)

1. The instant Appeals have been filed challenging the common

judgment and order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P. (C) 2470/2019 and W.P. (C) 9489/2019. [“Impugned Judgment”].

2. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge partially

allowed the writ petitions preferred on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 to 4,

while directing the Appellant inter alia to consider the Respondents No. 1 to

4 for promotion to the post of Assistant Librarians in consonance with the

existing Recruitment Rules.

3. Facts as narrated in the Impugned Judgment, to the extent necessary

and relevant are as follows:

(i) The Respondents No. 1 to 4 were appointed to the post of Semi

Professional Assistants in Dr. Zakir Husain Library of the

Appellant, and worked in that capacity between 1990 and 1997.

(ii) Subsequently, the Respondents No. 1 to 4 were promoted as

Professional Assistants, at which post they continued to work

till their respective retirements.

(iii) On 30.11.2009, the Appellant circulated a draft Seniority List of

non-teaching staff, wherein amongst the Professional

Assistants, the Respondent No. 1 was placed at Serial No. 2,

Respondent No. 2 was placed at Serial No. 3, Respondent No. 3

was placed at Serial No. 5 and Respondent No. 4 was placed at

Serial No. 6, while Respondent No. 5 was placed at seniority

position 16.

LPA 476/2025 Page 3 of 25

(iv) The Respondents No. 1 to 4 made representations for promotion

to the next post of Assistant Librarian based on their seniority

position in the seniority list of Professional Assistants, on the

ground that they had remained in the same Pay Band Rs. 9300-

34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-.

(v) On 23.03.2011, the Appellant‟s EC approved the proposal for

filling up the post of Assistant Librarian through 100% direct

recruitment through a national advertisement, interpreting

Clause 4.5 of the University Grants Commission (Minimum

Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic

Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the

maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations,

2010 [“2010 Regulations”], to mean that the mode of

recruitment through promotion was dispensed with. On

01.04.2011, these Minutes of Meeting dated 23.03.2011 were

approved by the EC.

(vi) The Respondents No. 1 to 4 again sent representation for

promotion on 28.07.2015, on the ground that they received no

promotion in the last 18 years of service. To this, a reply was

received on 28.11.2016 under the Right to Information Act,

2005, stating that Jawahar Lal Nehru University [“JNU”] was

promoting Professional Assistants as Assistant Librarians by

retaining the promotion mode and 8 Professional Assistants

were promoted through the Departmental Promotion

Committees [“DPCs”] convened between January, 2010 to

August, 2016.

LPA 476/2025 Page 4 of 25

(vii) Numerous other representations were made thereafter by the

Respondents No. 1 to 4, however, the same did not yield any

positive response. Instead of redressing the grievances of

Respondents No. 1 to 4, the Appellant issued an Advertisement

No. 02/2018-19 dated 20.04.2018, inviting applications inter

alia for 2 posts of Assistant Librarian. Thereafter on 19.12.2018,

the Appellant promoted the Respondent No. 5 on

recommendations of a DPC, under the Persons with Disabilities

category, even though he was junior to the Respondent Nos. 1

to 4.

(viii) Against the aforesaid backdrop, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4

filed W.P. (C) 2470/2019, wherein vide an Order dated

12.03.2019, the learned Single Judge directed that the filling up

of the post of Assistant Librarian would be subject to the

outcome of the writ petition. Notwithstanding the same, the

Appellant issued another Advertisement No. 01/2019-20 dated

22.05.2019, again inviting application for filling up the same 2

posts of Assistant Librarian, which led to the Respondent Nos. 1

to 4 filing an application praying that the Appellant be

restrained from filling the advertised posts. The same came to

be dismissed vide Order dated 02.08.2019, though this Court

provided clarity by reiterating that filling up of the posts would

be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

(ix) Later, the Respondents No. 1 to 4 also preferred a challenge to

the Minutes of the EC Meeting dated 23.03.2011, by way of

which the Appellant-University‟s EC decided to dispense with

LPA 476/2025 Page 5 of 25

the mode of promotion, as well as the subsequent advertisement

by way of W.P. (C) 9489/2019.

(x) Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge, in

agreement with the contention urged on behalf of the

Respondents No. 1 to 4 (Petitioners therein), observed that

since the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Librarian

issued by the Appellant herein were not amended, promotion

would continue to be the mode of appointment to the extent of

50% as per the existing Recruitment Rules.

(xi) While addressing the argument advanced on behalf of the

Appellant about the decision taken by the EC of the Appellant-

University on 23.03.2011 to adopt 100% direct recruitment as a

mode of appointment to the post of Assistant Librarian, the

learned Single Judge observed that nothing was brought on

record to show that after the said decision, any amendment was

made to the existing Recruitment Rules. With this observation,

the learned Single Judge held that in absence of any amendment

to the Recruitment Rules to change the mode of appointment to

100% direct recruitment, the case of Respondents No. 1 to 4

would continue to be governed by the existing Recruitment

Rules, wherein 50% mode of appointment was promotion.

(xii) The learned Single Judge also held that reliance of the

Appellant on the 2010 Regulations as a ground for not

considering the Respondents No. 1 to 4 was misplaced. To

arrive at this conclusion, the learned Single Judge referred to

another judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this

LPA 476/2025 Page 6 of 25

Court in Rambir v. Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Department of Higher Education and Others, (2024) SCC

OnLine Del 8644, wherein it was brought out that several

universities such as Jamia Hamdard, Central University of

Karnataka, etc., continue to fill up the post of Assistant

Librarian by promotion and direct recruitment.

(xiii) Before the learned Single Judge, it was also argued on behalf of

the Appellant that by virtue of the Respondents No. 1 to 4

having retired during the pendency of the writ petitions, the writ

petitions were rendered infructuous. However, the learned

Single Judge rejected this argument, while placing reliance on

an Office Memorandum dated 12.10.1998 of the Department of

Personnel and Training [“DoPT OM”], to conclude that there

was no bar in considering retired employees while preparing

year-wise panels, who were within the zone of consideration in

the relevant years.

(xiv) Lastly, the learned Single Judge observed that there was no

roster referred to or even prepared by the Appellant to buttress

its argument of preparation of a roster on the basis of which the

Respondent No. 5 was promoted under the PwD category. Since

no such roster was prepared, the learned Single Judge was of

the view that the mandate under Section 34 of the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [“RPwD Act”] was not

followed and as such, the learned Single Judge held that the

Respondent No. 5 could not be promoted out of turn, being

junior to the Respondents No. 1 to 4.

LPA 476/2025 Page 7 of 25

(xv) Consequently, the learned Single Judge partially allowed the

writ petitions, while directing the Appellant to consider the

Respondents No. 1 to 4 for promotion to the post of Assistant

Librarians in consonance with the existing Recruitment Rules.

The learned Single Judge also directed the Appellant to prepare

a roster in consonance with the DoPT OM, in view of the

promotion of Respondent No. 5 against the existing vacancies.

(xvi) A further direction was given to the Appellant to convene a

DPC to consider the Respondents for the said post and further

action to be taken on the basis of DPC‟s recommendation(s) and

existence of vacancies. Further, in the event that the

Respondents No. 1 to 4 are recommended for promotions, the

learned Single Judge directed that the promotion orders be

issued granting promotion on notional basis. Lastly, the learned

Single Judge ordered the promotion of Respondent No. 5 be

subject to the reservation point in the roster.

4. Against the observations and directions of the learned Single Judge in

the Impugned Judgment, the Appellant has preferred the instant Appeals.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits as under:

(i) The learned Single Judge has overlooked the import of the

Letter dated 13.01.2009 of the University Grants Commission

[“UGC”], which directed that the posts of inter alia Assistant

Librarian have to be filled by 100% direct recruitment through

all-India advertisement, as per the qualifications prescribed by

UGC.

LPA 476/2025 Page 8 of 25

(ii) The Appellant-University‟s decision to recruit Assistant

Librarians through 100% direct recruitment was done in light of

the above UGC‟s Letter dated 13.01.2009, which also specified

that UGC Regulations are mandatory in nature, after the

directions contained in the said Letter were placed before the

Academic Council as per Statute 16 of the Appellant-University

as well as before the Executive Council as per Section 19 of the

Jamia Act. As such, due procedure was followed.

(iii) It is an admitted case that prior to 1975; the relevant

recruitment rules provided for appointment to the post of

Assistant Librarian 50% through promotion and 50% through

direct recruitment. However, once the Jamia Millia Islamia Act,

1988 [“Jamia Act”] came into force in 1988, bye-laws became

the first Ordinances of the Appellant-University as per Section

25(2) of the Jamia Act.

(iv) Section 25(2) of the Jamia Act of the Executive Council gives

power to the Executive Council to make amendment to the said

first ordinances of the Appellant-University. Since methods of

recruitment are also to be prescribed by the Executive Council,

there can be no dispute as to the power of the Executive

Council to make amendments therein.

(v) A reading of Section 23 read with Section 25 of the Jamia Act

makes it clear that since the post of Assistant Librarian is not

found specifically mentioned in the Statutes of the Appellant-

University, governance of such appointment(s) shall be as per

the Ordinances. Specifically, Ordinance 6(VI) states that the

LPA 476/2025 Page 9 of 25

Executive Council shall decide the method of recruitment and it

is as per this Ordinance that the Resolution dated 23.03.2011

came into play.

(vi) Statute 14(2) denotes that the Executive Council has the power

to make appointments to professors, readers, lecturers and other

academic staff in the manner prescribed as per the Ordinances.

(vii) After the adoption of the Resolution of the Executive Council in

2011 and subsequent to the confirmation of minutes on

01.04.2011, the Appellant-University has continued to issue

advertisements for the post of Assistant Librarian to be filled

through 100% direct recruitment, latest of which was issued as

recent as 20.02.2023.

(viii) The instant Appeals are distinguishable from the judgment of

this Court in Rambir v. MHRD (Supra), insofar as in the said

case, JNU continued to recruit in contravention of the

2010Regulations, while the Appellant-University herein

immediately adhered to the directions of UGC.

(ix) A bare reading of Clause 4.5 of the UGC Regulations makes it

clear that the mode of recruitment to be followed therein is

100% direct recruitment only, as the said clause does not make

a mention about qualification for any other mode of

recruitment.

(x) The concerned amendment was one proposed to the recruitment

rules and not to Ordinance 6(VI) and as such, publications and

other procedures as mandated were not necessary.

LPA 476/2025 Page 10 of 25

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1

to 4 has vehemently opposed the present Appeal and supported the findings

of the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Judgment.

7. Heard the learned Counsels for both parties at length and perused the

material on record.

8. Before delving into the above, this Court deems it fit to remind itself

of the scope of permissible interference for a court dealing with a Letters

Patent Appeal, which has been established through various judicial

pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as several High Courts.

Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Baddula

Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple (1996) 3 SCC 52, which

observed as under:

“2…A letters patent appeal, as permitted under the

Letters Patent, is normally an intra-court appeal

whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a

Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in

exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the

Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order

of a subordinate court. In such appellate jurisdiction

the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of

Error. So understood, the appellate power under the

Letters Patent is quite distinct, in contrast to what is

ordinarily understood in procedural language…”

9. Thus, this Court's jurisdiction in an LPA does not extend to re-

appreciation of evidence or substituting its own findings for those of the

learned Single Judge, unless the findings are perverse or lack any

evidentiary basis.

LPA 476/2025 Page 11 of 25

10. What emerges from the arguments advanced by both sides as well as

the record is that adjudication of the present Appeal revolves around the

interpretation of the provisions of the Jamia Act, the Schedule contained

within the Jamia Act which provides the Statutes of the Appellant-University

as well as the Ordinances of the Appellant-University. Admittedly, no

pertinent arguments were advanced by either party before the learned Single

Judge involving the Jamia Act, Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations.

However, since lengthy arguments as to the validity of the Executive

Council‟s Resolution dated 23.03.2011 in light of the Jamia Act, Statutes,

Ordinances or Regulations, took place before this Court, fair and complete

adjudication would call for consideration of these aspects as well.

11. Now, it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant provisions of the

Jamia Act which this Court shall deal with:

“8. The Visitor.—(1) The President of India shall be

the Visitor of the University.

(2) The Visitor shall have the right to cause an

inspection to be made by such person or persons as he

may direct, of the University, its buildings,

laboratories and equipment, and of any Centre,

Department, Institution or School maintained by the

University and also of the examinations, teaching and

other work conducted or done by the University and

to cause an inquiry to be made in like manner in

respect of any matter connected with the

administration or finances of the University, Centre,

Department, Institution or School.

(3) The Visitor shall, in every case, give notice to the

University of his intention to cause an inspection or

inquiry to be made, and the University shall, on

receipt of such notice, have the right to make, within

thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice or

such other period as the Visitor may determine, such

LPA 476/2025 Page 12 of 25

representations to the Visitor, as it may consider

necessary.

(4) After considering the representations, if any, made

by the University, the Visitor may cause to be made

such inspection or inquiry as is referred to in sub-

section (2).

(5) Where any inspection or inquiry has been caused

to be made by the Visitor, the University shall be

entitled to appoint a representative, who shall have

the right to present and be heard at such inspection or

inquiry.

(6) The Visitor may, if the inspection or inquiry is

made in respect of the University or any Centre,

Department, Institution or School maintained by it,

address the Shaikh-ul-Jamia (Vice-Chancellor) with

reference to the result of such inspection or inquiry,

and the Shaikh-ul-Jamia (Vice-Chancellor) shall

communicate to the Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive

Council) the views of the Visitor with such advice as

the Visitor may offer upon the action to be taken

thereon.

(7) Where the Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive

Council) does not, within a reasonable time, take

action to the satisfaction of the Visitor, the Visitor,

may, after considering any explanation furnished or

representation made by the Majlis-i-Muntazimah

(Executive Council) issue such directions as he may

think fit and the Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive

Council), shall comply with such directions.

(8) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of

this section, the Visitor may, by order in writing,

annul any proceeding of the University which is not in

conformity with this Act, the Statutes or Ordinances:

Provided that before making any such order, he shall

call upon the University to show cause why such an

order should not be made, and, if any cause is shown

within a reasonable time, he shall consider the same.

LPA 476/2025 Page 13 of 25

(9) The Visitor shall have such other powers as may

be prescribed by the Statutes.

19. The Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive Council).—

(1) The Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive Council)

shall be the principal executive body of the University.

(2) The constitution of the Majlis-i-Muntazimah

(Executive Council), the term of office of its members

and its powers and duties shall be prescribed by the

Statutes.

24. Statues how to be made.—(1) The first Statutes

are those set out in the Schedule.

(2) The Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive Council)

may, from time to time, make new or additional

Statutes referred to in sub-section (1):

Provided that the Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive

Council) shall not make, amend or repeal any Statutes

affecting the status, powers or constitution of any

authority of the University until such authority has

been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion in

writing on the proposed changes, and any opinion so

expressed shall be considered by the Majlis-i-

Muntazimah (Executive Council).

(3) Every new Statute or addition to the Statutes or

any amendment or repeal of a Statute shall require

the assent of the Visitor who may assent thereto or

withhold assent or remit to the Majlis-i-Muntazimah

(Executive Council) for consideration.

(4) A new Statute or a Statute amending or repealing

an existing Statute shall have no validity unless it has

been assented to by the Visitor.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the

foregoing sub-sections, the Visitor may make new or

additional Statutes or amend or repeal the Statutes

referred to in sub-section (1) during the period of

three years immediately after the commencement of

this Act.

LPA 476/2025 Page 14 of 25

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the

foregoing sub-sections, the Visitor may direct the

University to make provisions in the Statutes in

respect of any matter specified by him and if the

Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive Council) is unable to

implement such a direction within sixty days of its

receipt, the Visitor may, after considering the reasons,

if any, communicated by the Majlis-i-Muntazimah

(Executive Council) for its inability to comply with

such direction make or amend the Statutes suitably.

25. Power to make Ordinances.—(1) Subject to the

provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Ordinances

may provide for all or any of the following matters,

namely:—

xxx

(o) such other terms and conditions of service of

teachers and other academic staff as are not

prescribed by the Statutes;

(2) The regulations and by-laws in force immediately

before the commencement of this Act shall be the first

Ordinances of the University and may be repealed or

amended at any time by the Majlis-i-Muntazimah

(Executive Council).

26. Power to make Regulations.—The authorities of

the University may make Regulations consistent with

this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances for the

conduct of their own business, and that of the

Committees appointed by them and not provided for

by this Act, the Statutes or the Ordinances in the

manner prescribed by the Statutes.

12. It is also necessary to advert to the relevant provisions of the Statutes

of the Appellant-University as framed under the Schedule to the Jamia Act.

The same are being extracted below:

LPA 476/2025 Page 15 of 25

“10. Librarian:

(1) The Librarian shall be appointed by the Majlis-i-

Muntazimah (Executive Council) on the

recommendation of a Selection Committee constituted

for the purpose under Statute 25 and shall be a whole

time officer of the University.

(2) The Librarian shall exercise such powers and

perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the

Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive Council).

14. Powers and Functions of Majlis-i-Muntazimah

(Executive Council):

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes

and the Ordinances, the Majlis-i-Muntazimah

(Executive Council) shall, in addition to all other

powers vested in it, have the following powers,

namely:—

(ii) to appoint such Professors, Readers,

Lecturers and other academic staff, as may be

necessary and Principals of Institutions on the

recommendation of the Selection Committee

constituted for the purpose under Statute 25 and

to fill up temporary vacancies therein;

(iii) to create administrative, ministerial and

other necessary posts and to make appointments

thereto in the manner prescribed by the

Ordinances;

(v) to regulate and enforce discipline among

members of the teaching, administrative and other

staff of the University in accordance with these

Statutes and the Ordinances;

25. Selection Committees:

TABLE

1 2

LPA 476/2025 Page 16 of 25

Library Staff The Majlis -i-

Muntazimah will

appoint a permanent

Selection Committee for

the Library Staff, other

than Librarian (from

time to time).

39. Ordinances how made:

(1) The Ordinances made under sub-section (2) of

Section 25 of the Act may be amended, repealed or

added to at any time by the Majlis-i-Muntazimah

(Executive Council) in the manner specified below.

(2) No Ordinance in respect of the matters

enumerated in Section 25 other than those

enumerated in clause (p) of sub-section (1) thereof,

shall be made by the Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive

Council) unless a drafts of such Ordinance has been

proposed by the Majlis-i-Talimi (Academic Council).

(3) The Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive Council)

shall not have power to amend any draft of any

Ordinance proposed by the Majlis-i-Talimi (Academic

Council) under clause (2), but may reject the proposal

or return the draft to the Majlis-i-Talimi (Academic

Council) for re-consideration, either in whole or in

part, together with any amendment which the Majlis-

i-Muntazimah (Executive Council) may suggest.

(4) Where the Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive

Council) has rejected or returned the draft of an

Ordinance proposed by the Majlis-i-Talimi (Academic

Council), the Majlis-i-Talimi (Academic Council) may

consider the question afresh and in case the original

draft is reaffirmed by a majority of not less than two-

thirds of the members present and voting and more

than half the total number of members of the Majlis-i-

Talimi (Academic Council) the draft may be sent back

to the Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive Council) which

LPA 476/2025 Page 17 of 25

shall either adopt it or refer it to the Visitor whose

decision thereon shall be final.

(5) Every Ordinance made by the Majlis-i-

Muntazimah (Executive Council) shall come into

effect immediately.

(6) Every Ordinance made by the Majlis-i-

Muntazimah (Executive Council), shall be submitted

to the Visitor within two weeks from the date of its

adoption. The Visitor shall have the power to direct

the University within four weeks of the receipt of the

Ordinance to suspend the operation of any such

Ordinance and he shall, as soon as possible, inform

the Majlis-i-Muntazimah (Executive Council) about

his objection to the proposed Ordinance. The Visitor

may, after receiving the comments of the University,

either withdraw the order suspending the Ordinance

or disallow the Ordinance, and his decision thereon

shall be final.

[Emphasis Supplied]

13. Lastly, this Court also deems it fit to reproduce below the relevant

Ordinances of the Appellant-University, for the sake of convenience:

“ORDINANCE 6 (VI)

―Terms and Conditions of Service of Jamia

Employees (other than Teachers, Registrar and

Finance Officer)‖

CHAPTER – I : APPLICATION AND DEFINITION

SECTION – I

1. Extent of Application: These rules shall apply to the

Jamia employees (other than teachers).

2. Short Title and Commencement: These rules may be

called the Terms and Conditions of Service of Jamia

Employees (other than teachers).

CHAPTER – II : GENERAL

LPA 476/2025 Page 18 of 25

SECTION - I : GENERAL CONDITIONS OF

SERVICE

3) Methods of Recruitment : Recruitment to posts will

be made:-

by direct recruitment;

by promotion; and

by appointment of employees borrowed from

Government Departments and other Institutions.

4) Recruitment by Promotion :

Appointment to a post in any grade by promotion shall

be made, whether in a permanent or officiating

capacity, from amongst employees serving in posts in

the next lower grade. Every appointment by promotion

shall be on the basis of suitability, having due regard to

seniority.

5. Appointments :

(i) Appointments to the posts shall be made by the

Executive Council on the recommendations of Selection

Committees.

(ii) The age, educational and other qualifications for

appointments to the posts and the methods of

recruitment shall be as prescribed by the Executive

Council, from time to time.”

14. It is pertinent to note that the post of „Assistant Librarian‟ finds itself

mentioned under Ordinance 23 (XXIII) of the Ordinances and Regulations

(Academic), which is reproduced hereunder:

“Ordinance 23 (XXIII)

ACADEMIC STAFF

l. The Academic Staff of the, University shall mean and

include such Categories of Staff, as are appointed to

conduct research or to academically assist in

LPA 476/2025 Page 19 of 25

teaching/research, or preparation of books and reading

material, or in other allied activities of academic nature.

2. In addition to the Categories mentioned in 'Para I

above, the following Categories of the University

employees shall also be the Academic Staff of the

University:

(1) Dr. Zakir Husain Library and other Libraries of the

University:

(a) Librarian (Professional Senior, Grade-I);

(b) Deputy Librarian (Professional Senior, Grade-II);

(c) Assistant Librarian/Assistant Librarian in Senior

Scale (ProfessionalJunior/ Professional Junior in

Senior Scale);

(d) Archivist; and

(e) Assistant Archivist.

(2) (a) Director of Physical Education; and

(b) Assistant Director of Physical Education/Assistant

Director of PhysicalEducation in Senior Scale.

(3) Such other Categories of the University employees,

as may be assigned as AcademicStaff by the Majlis-i-

Muntazimah (Executive Council) from time to time:”

[Emphasis Supplied]

15. Thus, with the post of Assistant Librarian being part of the academic

staff of the Appellant-University, reference is made to Section 23 of the

Jamia Act, which is already extracted above. What is borne out from a

reading of clause (d) under Section 23 is that the Statutes may provide for

the appointment of the academic staff of the Appellant-University. Given the

usage of the word “may” in Section 24, reference is also made to Section 25

of the Jamia Act, clause (o) whereof specifies that the Ordinances, subject to

the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, may provide for such other terms

and conditions of service of teachers and other academic staff as are not

prescribed by the Statutes.

LPA 476/2025 Page 20 of 25

16. Perusal of the provisions of the Statutes framed under the Jamia Act

does not per se bring out the necessary rules applicable to the appointment

of Assistant Librarian or the academic staff. Only provision relevant under

the Statutes is Statute 14, which sets forth the power of the Executive

Council of the Appellant-University to make appointments to inter alia

„other academic staff‟ on the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

Accordingly, attention is diverted to the Ordinances. Heavy reliance is

placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on Ordinance 6(VI), which

prescribes the „Terms and Conditions of Service of Jamia Employees (other

than Teachers, Registrar and Finance Officer‟ and is already reproduced

above. It is apposite to note that the extent of application as stated in

Ordinance 6(VI) does not seem to include academic staff at all. In this view,

this Court has no hesitation in observing that the reliance placed by the

Appellant-University on Ordinance 6(VI) is misplaced.

17. In light of the above, the only reference now left to be made is to sub-

Section (2) of Section 25 of the Jamia Act, on which substantial emphasis

has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant-University.

Section 25(2) of the Jamia Act lays down that the regulations and bye-laws

that were in force immediately before the commencement of the Jamia Act

shall be the first Ordinances of the Appellant-University and may be

repealed or amended at any time by the Executive Council.

18. This Court, at the very outset, notes that throughout the course of

hearing of the present Appeal, clarity as to the process undertaken by the

Appellant-University to purportedly adopt the process of 100% direct

recruitment remained unfounded. While the memorandum of Appeal

proposes to tell a story of a “consequential amendment to recruitment rules,”

LPA 476/2025 Page 21 of 25

oral arguments before this Court proceeded on the basis that it was the

Executive Council of the Appellant-University that undertook the process of

amending the particular Statute(s), Ordinance(s) and/or the Regulation(s) to

adopt 100% direct recruitment as the mode of recruitment to the post of

Assistant Librarian. Be that as it may, it was fairly conceded during the

course of hearing by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Jamia

Act is silent on the procedure of amendment to the recruitment rules and

therefore, this Court shall not delve into that question at all. With that

answer in mind, the question now becomes that in absence of a formal

amendment to the relevant recruitment rules, which has rightly been noted

by the learned Single Judge, can the Appellant-University‟s „resolution‟ to

adopt 100% direct recruitment withstand the provisions of the Jamia Act,

Statutes framed thereunder, Ordinances and Regulations?

19. Though the entire proceedings before the learned Single Judge and

even before this Court have taken place on the ipsi dixit of the Appellant-

University that there were a set of recruitment rules prior to 1988, i.e.,

before the enactment of the Jamia Act, there is nothing on record whatsoever

to verify this factum. In this view, this Court finds it difficult to proceed on

the basis that since the set of recruitment rules in place providing for 50%

direct recruitment and 50% promotion in respect of the post of Assistant

Librarian, the same would take the shape of first Ordinances of the

Appellant-University and therefore could be amended at any time by the

Executive Council. However, perusal of the Impugned Judgment passed by

the learned Single Judge suggests that it is an undisputed position that as per

the existing recruitment rules, appointment to the post of Assistant Librarian

was 50% through direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Yet, since the

LPA 476/2025 Page 22 of 25

year of the said recruitment rules still remains unclear, Section 25(2) of the

Jamia Act would not come to the rescue of the Appellant-University.

20. In any event, the Minutes of Meeting dated 23.03.2011 which inter

alia contains the Resolution No. 03 of the Executive Council to approve the

proposal for filling up the post of Assistant Librarian by 100% direct

recruitment, is the only document which remains reference to by this Court.

This aspect, in the opinion of this Court, requires no further analysis as

being correctly analysed by the learned Single Judge as follows:

“18. There is merit in the submission of learned Senior

Counsel for the Petitioners that the RRs for the post of

Assistant Librarian issued by Respondent No. 1 have

not been amended till date and in the absence of any

amendment to the RRs, promotion continues to be the

mode of appointment to the extent of 50% as per

existing RRs. No doubt, EC took a decision inthe

meeting held on 23.03.2011 to adopt 100% direct

recruitment as a mode of appointment to the post of

Assistant Librarian but there is nothing in the counter

affidavit which even remotely suggests that post the

decision, the RRs were amended. In fact, in the meeting

itself, it was resolved that the RRs should be amended

in accordance with the decision. Even during the

course of hearing, Court has put a pointed query to

counsel for Respondent No.1 if the RRs were amended

and if so, whether the copy has been placed on record,

in response to which it is fairly conceded that there has

been no amendment to the RRs. Until the RRs are

amended by Respondent No.1 to change the mode of

appointment to 100% direct recruitment, case of the

Petitioners will be governed only by the existing RRs,

wherein 50% mode of appointment is admittedly

promotion. As rightly placed by learned Senior

Counsel for the Petitioners even Respondent No.1 itself

recognized that promotion continued to be the mode of

LPA 476/2025 Page 23 of 25

appointment and which is why despite issuance of

advertisements for direct recruitment, Respondent No.2

was promoted on recommendation of a DPC, which is

clearly evident from his promotion order dated

19.12.2018.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

21. The above observation of the learned Single Judge leaves no room for

this Court to interfere. It is, in fact, quite peculiar as to how a PwD candidate

can be promoted to the same post for which only direct recruitment is

prescribed for. This act of the Appellant-University, suffice to say, is done

while misinterpreting the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajeev Kumar

Gupta v. Union of India, (2016) 13 SCC 153. Vide the said Judgment, the

Apex Court directed that 3% reservation be provided to all PwD candidates

in the identified posts in the category of Group A and Group B irrespective

of the mode of filling up of such posts. However, import of the words

“irrespective of the mode of filling up of such posts,” cannot mean that the

Appellant-University would bypass its own resolution to appoint persons

through only direct recruitment. It does not require mentioning that

provision of reservation in compliance with the judgment of the Apex Court

in Rajeev Kumar Gupta (supra), could also have been provided in the

process of direct recruitment. Accordingly, the act of the Appellant-

University to promote the Respondent No. 5 to the very same post for only

direct recruits could have been appointed to, in the opinion of this Court,

rightly suggests that even the Appellant-University followed the mode of

promotion, despite of having seemingly done away with the said mode by

way of the Resolution No. 03 of the Executive Council dated 23.03.2011.

LPA 476/2025 Page 24 of 25

22. This Court also finds itself in agreement with the observation of the

learned Single Judge to the effect that there is nothing in Clause 4.5 of the

2010 Regulations which provides that appointment to the post of Assistant

Librarian would only be done through direct recruitment.

23. As for the reliance placed by the Appellant-University on the UGC‟s

Letter dated 13.01.2009. The opening sentence of the said Letter states that

as per the UGC Regulation/Notification, 1998, the posts of Assistant

Librarian, etc. have to be filled through 100% direct recruitment, the same is

a mandatory in nature and as such, must be followed by all Central

Universities. The said Letter, though issued in reference to a complaint

received regarding Delhi University, nevertheless also states that corrective

steps be taken accordingly. Even if this Letter is the basis of the Appellant-

University‟s Executive Council to do away with direct recruitment by way

of the its Resolution No. 03 dated 23.03.2011, the said procedure still

depicts arbitrariness, as no formal amendment to the recruitment rules ever

took place.

24. This Court also cannot lose sight of the discussion of the learned

Single Judge regarding the RTI reply brought on record in another case

before a learned Single Judge of this Court in Rambir v. MHRD (supra). It

was revealed that even the UGC itself took the stand that it had not notified

any uniform service conditions for non-teaching staff of central universities

and the universities could frame their own cadre recruitment rules and lay

down requisite qualifications, promotion policies etc.

25. With the foregoing observations, this Court finds itself in complete

agreement with the observations of the learned Single Judge in the

LPA 476/2025 Page 25 of 25

Impugned Judgment and as such, deems it appropriate to uphold the same.

Accordingly, the present Appeals are dismissed.

26. The Appellant-University is directed to comply with the directions

contained in Paragraph No. 22 of the Impugned Judgment forthwith.

27. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV , J

JANUARY 28, 2026

Rahul/AP