Delhi High Court Reads Down UGC Regulation On Interview-Based Selection Of Assistant Professors

The High Court clarified that interview performance can be determinative only when preceded and accompanied by objective academic assessment in terms of Clauses 5.2 and 6.0 of the UGC Regulations, and that exclusive reliance on a subjective viva-voce process violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a PwBD candidate challenging the recruitment process adopted by the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, including the validity of Clause 4.1.I.B of the UGC Regulations, 2018, and the declaration of the PwBD-reserved post as “none found suitable”.

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, while partly allowing the petition, held that “Clause 4.1.I.B of the UGC Regulations, 2018 is not unconstitutional per se; however, it is read down to the extent that it shall not be applied to permit or sustain a wholly unstructured, unguided and exclusively interview-based selection process.”

Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar appeared for the petitioner, while the respondents were represented by Parmanand Gaur, Standing Counsel for UGC, and Raj Kumar, CGSC.

Background

The petitioner, a person with a benchmark disability, applied for the post of Assistant Professor pursuant to an advertisement. One post was expressly reserved for PwBD candidates. The advertisement stipulated that selection would be based entirely on performance in the interview.

After scrutiny, the petitioner was awarded marks at the screening stage and was shortlisted for an interview. Thirteen PwBD candidates were called for an interview. However, upon declaration of results, the respondents recorded that “none of the candidates interviewed by the Committee was found suitable” for the PwBD-reserved post.

Subsequent RTI responses revealed that no internal distribution of interview marks was maintained, no reasons were recorded for declaring the PwBD candidates unsuitable, and the unfilled PwBD vacancy was proposed to be carried forward and re-advertised as an EWS-PwBD post.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the result, the advertisement, the conversion of the PwBD vacancy, and the constitutional validity of Clause 4.1.I.B of the UGC Regulations insofar as it permitted selection solely on the basis of interview.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court examined the statutory framework of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and held that while the Regulations have statutory force, they cannot be interpreted in a manner that authorises arbitrariness or dilutes constitutional guarantees and statutory rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Bench observed that Clause 4.1.I.B, when read in isolation, appeared to permit final selection solely on interview performance. However, a holistic reading of the Regulations, particularly Clauses 5.2 and 6.0, made it clear that the regulatory scheme mandates structured academic evaluation through objective criteria, grading proforma, and transparent methodology prior to and alongside the interview stage.

The Court held that the interview was envisaged only as a supplementary and final stage of assessment and not as a standalone mechanism of selection. Any interpretation permitting exclusive reliance on a subjective interview process, the Court held, would defeat the internal architecture of the Regulations and render the selection process vulnerable to arbitrariness.

The Bench further held that the 100% interview-based process adopted by the respondents, without any predefined benchmarks, internal mark distribution, recorded reasons, or objective evaluation parameters, violated the doctrine of non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, particularly in the context of recruitment to an entry-level teaching post.

The Court also examined the normative framework of the RPwD Act and emphasised that reservation for PwBD candidates is a statutory obligation flowing from substantive equality. The Court held that a mere formal reservation without meaningful implementation through relaxed standards and reasonable accommodation reduces the mandate of the Act to a ritualistic exercise.

The Bench rejected the respondents’ contention that the absence of a minimum interview cut-off rendered relaxation impossible, holding that the failure to prescribe structured criteria itself rendered the process arbitrary. It further held that conversion of the PwBD vacancy into an EWS-PwBD vacancy altered the horizontal nature of reservation and violated Section 34 of the RPwD Act as well as applicable DoPT Office Memoranda.

Summarising its conclusions, the Court held that Clause 4.1.I.B must be read down and “must henceforth be interpreted and applied in consonance with Clauses 5.2 and 6.0 of the UGC Regulations of 2018, ensuring structured, objective and transparent evaluation of candidates prior to and alongside the interview stage.”

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court quashed the advertisement to the extent it prescribed a wholly interview-based selection, set aside the declaration of the PwBD post as “none found suitable”, and invalidated the conversion of the PwBD vacancy into an EWS-PwBD vacancy.

The Court directed the respondent to re-advertise the post reserved for PwBD candidates within eight weeks, retaining its original horizontal character and adopting a structured, objective and transparent selection framework in accordance with the law.

Cause Title: Dr Sachin Kumar v. National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11708-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, with Advocates Rishabh Sharma, Ambica Sood and Ritik Raghuwanshi

Respondents: Amitesh Kumar, Advocate; Parmanand Gaur, Standing Counsel for UGC; Raj Kumar, CGSC

Click here to read/download Judgment