$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9355/2016 MAHESH NATH SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Mr. Akshat Gogna, Mr. C. Ruby Thomas, Advocates.

versus NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Shaurya Banshtu, Advocate for Respondent No. 1, 3 & 4.

Ms. Ishita, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026

1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste (“SC”) category, assailing his non-selection pursuant to advertisement dated 1^st June, 2013 issued by Respondent No. 2, Indian Statistical Institute (“ISI”), for filling reserved backlog vacancies under a special recruitment drive for the post of Assistant Professor.

2. The Petitioner contends that despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria and being called for a seminar/presentation, his candidature was rejected arbitrarily and on discriminatory considerations.

Background

3. The Petitioner submitted his application/resume in June 2013. ISI processed the application through its Divisional Committee. By communication dated 12^th November, 2013, the Petitioner was invited to deliver a seminar on 25^th November, 2013. The said communication recorded that ISI could not offer the post of Assistant Professor to a candidate who had not completed three years after Ph.D., and that such candidates would be considered for Lectureship, if found suitable.

4. Thereafter, a Selection Committee was constituted by Office Order dated 28^th August, 2014 to consider, inter alia, the Petitioner’s candidature. In its meeting held on 1^st September, 2014, the Selection Committee did not recommend the Petitioner. This decision was conveyed to the Petitioner through a letter dated 12^th January, 2016, which also referred to developments concerning a subsequent recruitment drive advertised in December 2014.

Contentions

5. Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, counsel for the Petitioner, makes the following submissions in support of the petition:

5.1. The Petitioner belongs to the SC category, and he applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 1^st June, 2013 issued by ISI. He fulfilled the advertised eligibility conditions, possessed a Ph.D. in the relevant discipline, had a consistent academic record, and possessed post-doctoral research and teaching experience. The CV filed with the petition, and the publications listed therein, indicate that the Petitioner satisfied the prescribed threshold and was entitled, at the very least, to be considered on merits in a fair and transparent selection process. The advertisement itself contemplated relaxation wherever applicable.

5.2. Despite satisfying eligibility and being processed through successive stages of evaluation, the Petitioner’s candidature was rejected without any cogent basis and without any contemporaneous, reasoned communication. The ISI, being an institution of national importance and “State” within the meaning of Article 12, is obliged to conduct recruitment in a manner that is transparent, non-arbitrary and consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Where an eligible reserved-category candidate is screened out without disclosed reasons, the process becomes opaque and constitutionally suspect and the authority must disclose the basis of exclusion.

5.3. The Petitioner’s application was not rejected at the threshold. On the contrary, he was called upon by the competent functionary to appear for a seminar and presentation. The Institute thereby represented, at least implicitly, that he had crossed the preliminary eligibility scrutiny. Having subjected him to evaluation, ISI could not thereafter rely upon vague assertions of non-recommendation without disclosing the basis. The process, as applied to him, lacked procedural fairness as he was neither informed of any deficiency in eligibility nor informed of any assessed shortcomings.

5.4. The communication dated 12th January, 2016 records that a Divisional Committee had recomm