* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 28^th JANUARY, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

+ LPA 476/2025 & CM APPL. 45645/2025, CM APPL. 45646/2025 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Mr. Shiv Chopra and Ms.

Shweta Singh, Advocates.

versus ROSHAN ARA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shamshad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Mr. Syed Hamza Ghayour and Ms. Zev Hasan, Advocates for R-1 to R-4.

+ LPA 477/2025 & CM APPL. 45648/2025, CM APPL. 45649/2025 JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Mr. Shiv Chopra and Ms.

Shweta Singh, Advocates.

versus ROSHAN ARA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shamshad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Mr. Syed Hamza Ghayour and Ms. Zev Hasan, Advocates for R-1 to R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

JUDGMENT

(SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD J.)

1. The instant Appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment and order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 2470/2019 and W.P. (C) 9489/2019. [“Impugned Judgment”].

2. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge partially allowed the writ petitions preferred on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 to 4, while directing the Appellant inter alia to consider the Respondents No. 1 to 4 for promotion to the post of Assistant Librarians in consonance with the existing Recruitment Rules.

3. Facts as narrated in the Impugned Judgment, to the extent necessary and relevant are as follows:

(i) The Respondents No. 1 to 4 were appointed to the post of Semi Professional Assistants in Dr. Zakir Husain Library of the Appellant, and worked in that capacity between 1990 and 1997.

(ii) Subsequently, the Respondents No. 1 to 4 were promoted as Professional Assistants, at which post they continued to work till their respective retirements.

(iii) On 30.11.2009, the Appellant circulated a draft Seniority List of non-teaching staff, wherein amongst the Professional Assistants, the Respondent No. 1 was placed at Serial No. 2, Respondent No. 2 was placed at Serial No. 3, Respondent No. 3 was placed at Serial No. 5 and Respondent No. 4 was placed at Serial No. 6, while Respondent No. 5 was placed at seniority position 16.

(iv) The Respondents No. 1 to 4 made representations for promotion to the next post of Assistant Librarian based on their seniority position in the seniority list of Professional Assistants, on the ground that they had remained in the same Pay Band Rs. 9300-

34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-.

(v) On 23.03.2011, the Appellant‟s EC approved the proposal for filling up the post of Assistant Librarian through 100% direct recruitment through a national advertisement, interpreting Clause 4.5 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 [“2010 Regulations”], to mean that the mode of recruitment through promotion was dispensed with. On 01.04.2011, these Minutes of Meeting dated 23.03.2011 were approved by the EC.

(vi) The Respondents No. 1 to 4 again sent representation for promotion on 28.07.2015, on the ground that they received no promotion in the last 18 years of service. To this, a reply was received on 28.11.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, stating that Jawahar Lal Nehru University [“JNU”] was promoting Professional Assistants as Assistant Librarians by retaining the promotion mode and 8 Professional Assistants were promoted through the Departmental Promotion Committees [“DPCs”] convened between January, 2010 to August, 2016.

(vii) Numerous other representations were made thereafter by the Respondents No. 1 to 4, however, the same did not yield any positive response. Instead of redressing the grievances of Respondents No. 1 to 4, the Appellant issued an Advertisement No. 02/2018-1