IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision emphasized the validity of the resolution and the absence of any illegality, highlighting the importance of administrative decisions in avoiding lapses.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the relevant records and quash and set aside the Resolution No. E.C. (1260) dated 25.03.2022 passed by Executive Council of Respondent No.1 in so far as it permits the Respondent No.2 to continue as Head of Department of the Economics Department;

B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to take all steps to appoint the Petitioner as Head of Department of the Economics Department;

C. Pass any such order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice..."

FACTUAL HISTORY

2. The petitioner had joined the respondent no. 1, i.e., University of Delhi as a Reader in the year 1997.

3. Respondent no. 1 is the University of Delhi (hereinafter "DU"), which has been established under the Delhi University Act, 1992 (hereinafter "the Act"). Respondent no. 2, Professor Surender Kumar, was appointed as Head of the Department (hereinafter "HOD") on 17th December, 2020. Respondent no. 3 is the University Grants Commission (hereinafter "UGC") which is the nodal agency responsible for formulation and implementation of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

4. On 1st July, 2015, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Professor w.e.f. 16th October 2003 in the Department of Economics. The petitioner was granted all the consequential benefits except inter se seniority.

5. The genesis of the dispute in the instant matter is that the petitioner has alleged that DU purportedly failed to recognize the inter se seniority of the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner met the Vice Chancellor of DU on 17th October, 2017 and thereafter, made several representations stating that his seniority must be reckoned as per the UGC Regulations, moreover, he was eligible to be appointed as the HOD.

6. Aggrieved by the inaction on behalf of DU, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing no. W.P (C) 13219/2018 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, during the pendency of aforesaid writ petition, DU appointed the respondent no. 2 herein as the HOD.

7. The aforesaid action of DU was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in another writ petition bearing no. W.P (C) 1008/2021.

8. Meanwhile, the UGC vide notification dated 18th July, 2018 recommended various amendments in the existing regulations under the head of 'UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2018' ("hereinafter "Regulations 2018"). The subject matter of the present petition is concerned with Clause 16.3 of the above said amended regulations.

9. The above said writ petitions were dismissed vide judgment dated 15th March, 2021 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal vide LPA bearing nos. 158/2021 and 159/2021 before the Division Bench of this Court.

10. During the pendency of the aforementioned appeals, the Executive Council of DU passed a resolution bearing no. EC (1260) dated 25th March, 2022, whereby, Resolution no. 71 and thereunder Regulation 16.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter "the Resolution") was adopted which stated that seniority lists are to be revised. By way of the said resolution, under sub clause (b) of Clause 16.3, it was also decided that the existing HOD shall continue till his tenure comes to an end.

11. Since the issue in the writ petition bearing no. W.P (C) 13219/2018 stood answered in terms of the above said Resolution and the only grievance of the petitioner now pertained to his appointment to the post of HOD, the petitioner withdrew both the appeals with liberty to file a fresh