The central legal point established in the judgment is the non-binding nature of the UGC Regulations, 2010 on a state-funded university and the importance of essential qualifications outlined in the university's advertisement.

1. In this petition, benefit of relaxation of 5% marks is sought by petitioner by virtue of being an OBC candidate and in terms 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 (Annexure P-1 colly.) (hereinafter referred to as the UGC Regulations, 2010). The precise stand taken on behalf of respondent-University is that the UGC Regulations, 2010 do not bind respondent-University as it does not receive any grant or aid from respondent-UGC.

2. In terms of last order, learned counsel for respondent-DTU has produced in a sealed cover petitioner’s result of Screening Test held on 26th November, 2017 and on opening the said sealed cover, it is found that petitioner has qualified for Presentation and Interview, which has to take place today and tomorrow i.e. 30th November and 1st December, 2017. The result of petitioner in respect of aforesaid Screening Test is taken on record without creating any equity in favour of petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no rejoinder is required to be filed.

4. This petition is being taken up for final hearing as it needs to be decided on priority as to whether petitioner ought to be permitted to appear in Presentation and the Interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Management Discipline, which is slated for today and tomorrow i.e. 30th November and 1st December, 2017.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner asserts that the question which falls for consideration in this petition is whether the UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory or of mandatory nature qua respondent-University. It is pointed out that respondent-University has accepted the UGC Regulations, 2010. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn to the UGC Regulations, 2010 (Annexure P-1 colly.) to point out that these Regulations apply to every institution established under the Central Act, Provisional Act or the State Act. It is pointed out that the UGC Regulations, 2010 (Annexure P-1 colly.) have been framed in consultation with the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’) and so, respondent-University is bound by the UGC Regulations, 2010 (Annexure P-1 colly.). Attention of this Court is also drawn by petitioner’s counsel to respondent-University’s Advertisement for recruitment to faculty positions (Annexure P-2) to point out that the essential qualification for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor is a Ph.D. Degree in conformity with the UGC Regulation on Minimum Standards and Procedure for the Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree, Regulation 2009 (for short UGC’s Ph.D. Regulations, 2009).

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent-University that respondent-University is fully funded by Government of NCT of Delhi and is governed by its own Statute of 2009 (Annexure R-1), which is in consonance with AICTE, which does not provide for any weightage of marks for OBC category candidates. So, it is submitted on behalf of respondent-University that petitioner is ineligible for Screening Test, Presentation and the Interview. It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent-University that eligibility conditions as prescribed in respondent-University’s Notification of 12th April, 2017 (Annexure R-2) prevails and since petitioner does not possess the essential qualification as required by the aforesaid Notification (Annexure R-2), this petition deserves to be dismissed. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for respondent-University upon Supreme Court’s decision in Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 363 to submit that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory in nature for the University or the Colleges and other Higher Institutions, which are under the purview of State Legislation. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent-University that the