$~16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7692/2017, CM APPL. 64313/2023

RUCHIKA TANWAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj,

Mr. Himanshu Bhardwaj,

Ms. Shradha Maheshwari and

Mr. Archit Mudgal, Advocates.

versus

THE REGISTRAR, GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA

UNIVERSITY & ANR .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate for R-1.

Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC for

GNCTD with Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms.

Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish

Sehrawat, Advocates.

Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Mr. Raj Kumar

Maurya, Mr. Krishna Chaitanya and Mr. Divyansh Singh, Advocates for

R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the action of Respondent No. 1 in not selecting/appointing the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Chemical Technology), USCT, and seeks a direction to Respondent No. 1 to select/appoint the Petitioner to the said

post.

2. The Petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Assistant

Professor (Chemical Technology) pursuant to advertisement dated 24^th January, 2013. She contends that she was called for interview and, out of the 36 reserved seats for the said post, two candidates, one each from the SC and ST categories, were appointed, whereas the Petitioner, who belongs to the OBC category, was not considered.

3. She further submits that she had earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) 5070/2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 12^th August, 2014, recording the submission on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner’s representation would be responded to within a period of four weeks, with liberty to the Petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in case her grievance remained unredressed. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent University issued a reply dated 30^th September, 2014, which according to the Petitioner does not redress her grievance. Consequently, the present petition has been filed.

4. It is urged that the Petitioner, being eligible and belonging to the OBC category, could not have been ignored. It is further contended that the Respondent University’s reply dated 30^th September, 2014 to the legal notice is evasive and, in fact, indicates that out of 17 posts earmarked for OBC candidates, only 10 were filled. It is also asserted that there was no OBC Assistant Professor in the concerned department and, therefore, Respondent No. 1 acted in violation of the reservation roster, depriving the Petitioner of an OBC earmarked post.

5. It is thus contended that Respondent No. 1 has acted arbitrarily and in a mala fide manner, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. The Court has considered the aforesaid contentions and has also heard Ms. Anita Sahani, counsel for Respondent No. 1. Certain pertinent facts which emerge from the record need to be noticed.

7. The impugned advertisement dated 24^th January, 2013 was also the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Dr. Debasis Poddar &Ors. v Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Anr., W.P.(C) 2943/2013 The cause of action pleaded in the said writ petition noted in paragraph 2 thereof, reads as under:

“2. The basic cause of action which is pleaded in the writ petition is for implementation of UGC guidelines for reservation for all posts. This cause of action is buttressed by reference to clause 3.2 of Statute 31 of the respondent No. 1 which prescribes reservation for posts for candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/Handicapped and other special categories etc. Challenge was laid the writ petition to the impugned advertisement dated 24.1.2013 which reserved the entire 36 posts of Assistant Professor (which was advertised) for SC/ST and OBC category. One post was also reserved for persons with disability out of the aforesaid 36 posts. By the same advertisement 15 posts of Professor and 24 posts of Associate Professor were also advertised. Challenge is also laid to appointment process without creating and following the Roster Point System.”

8. Con