$~28

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 10548/2019, CM APPL. 43669-43670/2019, CM APPL.

30560/2021 & CM APPL. 43780/2023

DR. BHUPERNDER SINGH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr. Nilakanta

Nayak & Mr. K.N. Mishra, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. J K Tripathi SPC for UOI

Mr. Vibhakar Mishra, Mr. Utkarsh Mishra, Ms. Sumedha Singh & Ms.

Anushka Mishra, Advs. for R-2 & 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 12.01.2026

1. This writ petition emanates from a selection process initiated pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2019, issued for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Education) at Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi/Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner was one of the candidates who

applied for the subject post in response to the advertisement.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was found eligible for the aforesaid post, whereas Respondent No. 4, who ultimately came to be selected, did not possess the requisite qualification, namely, a Master’s degree in Education with specialization in Educational Measurement and Evaluation, as stipulated in the advertisement. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has

invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the Respondent No.2&3 to produce the complete record of the selection committee by which the decision was taken to recommend the Respondent No.4 on the post of Associate Professor (Education);

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the Respondent No.2&3 to produce the minutes of meeting discussed in the 24^'' meeting of Board of Management held on

17.09.2019;

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the Respondent No.2&3 to declare the Respondent No.4 is not eligible for the post of Associate Professor (Education) in view of the qualification mentioned in Advertisement No.1/2019;

(d) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of I mandamus directing/commanding the Respondent No.2&3 to set aside the selection of the Respondent No.4 on the post of Associate Professor (Education) being illegal and void;

(e) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the Respondent No.2&3 to declare the result afresh on the post of Associate Professor (Education) after considering the qualification mentioned in Advertisement No.1/2019;

(f) pass an ex parte ad interim order/ directions in terms of above prayers, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;

(g) And pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts &circumstances of the case.

3. Mr. Vibhakar Mishra, counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous inasmuch as Respondent No. 4, whose appointment is under challenge, has since tendered his resignation, which has been duly accepted. It is further submitted that, subsequently, the post in question was re-advertised on three occasions. The Petitioner did not apply pursuant to the first two re-advertisements and applied only on the third occasion, the recruitment process whereunder is stated to be ongoing.

4. Mr. Amit Yadav, counsel for the Petitioner, does not dispute the factual position that Respondent No. 4 has resigned from the post. He concedes that, in view thereof, prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) have become infructuous. However, he presses prayer (e) and contends that this Court ought to issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to declare the result afresh for the post in question, in accordance with the qualifications prescribed in Advertisement No. 1/2019.

5. The Court is unable to accede to this request. Once Respondent No. 4, whose selection formed th