“A Classic Case Of Scant Regard For Fairness In Action”: Delhi High Court Directs DU To Complete Selection Process For Non-Teaching Posts
The Delhi High Court quashed directed the Delhi University to complete the remaining formalities of document verification etc. and take the selection process to its logical end.
Justice Jyoti Singh, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi University (DU) to complete the selection process for the non-teaching posts.
The Court was deciding a batch of Writ Petitions filed against the notifications issued by DU in respect of appointments to the post of Laboratory Attendant as also for a direction to the University to permit the Petitioners to join service with all consequential benefits.
A Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh remarked, “Before drawing the curtains, I may pen down that because of the arbitrary and illegal action of the University, Petitioners have lost nearly two crucial years of their lives and careers. Some of the Petitioners had in fact resigned from their earlier jobs when offer letters were received from the University and many have become overage for appearing in any other examination. This is a classic case of scant regard for fairness in action and ‘motivated reasoning” and the University must introspect!!!”
The Bench quashed and set aside the impugned notifications and directed DU to complete the remaining formalities of document verification etc. and take the selection process to its logical end.
Advocate Anuj Aggarwal represented the Petitioners while Advocate J.S. Rupal represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
In other Writ Petitions, similar reliefs were sought for the posts of Library Attendant, Assistant, and Junior Assistant (Store). All the Petitions were related to the same advertisement and selection process and involved the same question of law and hence, they were heard together. An advertisement was issued by DU in 2021 for filling up vacancies in 51 different non-teaching posts. The Petitioners in the different Writ Petitions applied for the posts and as per Advertisement cum-“Information Brochure & Guidelines for filling of Online Application form for recruitment of Non-Teaching Positions in Delhi University”, the written examination was to be conducted by National Testing Agency (NTA).
Being qualified and eligible, the Petitioners applied for the two posts respectively and qualified the written examination conducted by NTA at the allotted centres. NTA published the list of selected candidates and a list of 151 selected candidates in the order of merit was published for the post of Laboratory Attendant and for the post of Library Attendant, 108 candidates were selected. Thereafter, DU published a list of candidates to whom offer of appointment were issued on the basis of their final selection in the written examination and they were to join within 15 days. Since many Petitioners were living in far-flung parts of the country, it took 5-7 days to receive offer letters and only 9 persons in the category of Laboratory Attendant and 15 persons in the category of Library Attendant reported by August 24, 2023.
It was averred that without any reason or basis, DU issued the notifications putting on hold the joining of the candidates, with the approval of the Competent Authority. By a further notification, it notified that the matter of selection of candidates to whom offer of appointment were issued, was under examination and therefore, DU had decided to put the joining of all the candidates on hold, including of those who had reported. Candidates were advised to check the DU website regularly for further updates and no reason was spelt out even in this notification as to why the joining process was put on hold. Many of the candidates had by this time resigned from their existing jobs or received NOCs from previous employers and/or had become over age. Being aggrieved by such an alleged unjust and arbitrary action of DU, some of the Petitioners preferred representations to the University, but seeing no positive outcome, the Petitions were filed before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “This Court is unable to find any flaw in the conduct of the examination on any aspect which could lead to a conclusion that the process is vitiated. No doubt, Clause 12 of Section ‘E’ of the Advertisement-cum ‘Information Brochure & Guidelines for filling of Online Application form for recruitment of Non-Teaching Positions in Delhi University’, for filling the online application forms notified that in case of any inadvertent mistake in the process of selection, which may be detected at any stage, even after issuing an appointment letter, University reserved the right to modify/ withdraw/cancel any communication made to the applicant and/or that the offer letters stipulated that the offers were provisional, but the facts and circumstances obtaining in these cases, as noted above, do not warrant cancellation of the examination and selected candidates deserve to be appointed.”
The Court noted that there were serious complaints in the office of Chief Minister, GNCTD of irregularities and candidates securing high marks in Tier-I examination scored extremely low marks in Tier-II examination.
“As a matter of fact, Committee found that the mark list was dominated by particular section of the society based on their surnames. There was no randomisation of seating arrangements resulting in factually members of the same family sitting in close proximity to each other in both Tier-I and Tier-II examination. Committee also noted a racket leading to impersonation of candidates, which involved an identified person who was the Chief Invigilator at a particular centre connected with a coaching centre and was involved in leakage of question paper. He repeatedly fixed his duty in a choice of centre with the help of DSSSB staff”, it added.
The Court further said that the Committee found that videography was blurred, thumb impressions were unrecognisable, jammers were not working properly and possibly flying squad members were passing answers to candidates and none of these factors even remotely exist in the present cases.
“In the present cases, it is not even the stand of University that any gadget/mobile phone/blue tooth etc. was recovered from any candidate in any suspected centre or that the jammers or other security protocols were non-functional”, it also noted.
The Court was of the view that DU has miserably failed in establishing use of any unfair means in the examination in question and what comes to light is that by a process of reverse engineering for motivated reasoning, by analysing a skewed data the DU is seeking to illegally justify its erroneous decision to shelve the process of selection, which cannot be accepted.
“The process of hindsight analysis adopted by the University by picking up a limited data of selected candidates and attempting to match the incorrect responses is a dangerous path to follow as by this process, any and every competitive examination will become vulnerable, even in the absence of any material showing use of unfair means and/or the modus operandi adopted by the candidates”, it added.
Directions
The Court, therefore, directed that upon appointment, the Petitioners will be permitted to join their respective places of postings forthwith and will be entitled to all consequential benefits.
“Petitioners in this writ petition were shortlisted for Tier-II examination for the posts of Assistant and Junior Assistant (Store), which they were precluded from doing because the process was put on hold. In view of the findings above, University is directed to proceed with the Tier-II examination and permit the Petitioners to participate in the same. Further course of action for these Petitioners will depend on the result of the Tier-II examination”, it further directed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the impugned notifications.
Cause Title- Hemant Sharawat & Ors. v. University of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4677)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Anuj Aggarwal, Pradeep Kumar, Kritika Matta, Avinash Kumar, Nikhil Pawar, Ranya Rose, and Shubham Bahl.
Respondents: Advocates Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Hardik Rupal, Aishwarya Malhotra, Neetish Pachauri, Pankhuri Shrivastava, and Alekshendra Sharma.
