$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 06.04.2026 % Judgment delivered on: 09.04.2026 + LPA 198/2026 & CM APPL. 21404/2026 PRINCE KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. R. K. Saini and Mr. Abhishek, Advs. versus DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat with Mrs. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

J U D G M E N T

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This intra-Court appeal challenges the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C) 8606/2019 instituted by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. Certain facts, in brief, which have bearing on this appeal may be noted. An advertisement for filling up various posts of Assistant Professor was issued on 28.09.2017 by the respondent no.1– Delhi Technological University (hereinafter referred to as University). Amongst others, one post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Management in Delhi School of Management was advertised, which was reserved for candidates belonging to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste (hereinafter referred to as SC). One more post of Assistant Professor in the same discipline, which was reserved for the reserved category candidates belonging to the SC category in the University School of Management and Entrepreneurship (East Delhi Campus) of the University, was also advertised. The appellant, who belongs to the SC category, pursuant to the said advertisement dated 28.09.2017, applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Management.

4. The advertisement dated 28.09.2017 gave details of the positions, the reservation applied, the pay scales and essential qualifications, etc. The advertisement also stipulated the process of recruitment according to which the University would conduct a screening test for shortlisting the candidates, and thereafter the shortlisted candidates would make a presentation before a Committee in the concerned department and other invitees of the University prior to appearing before the Selection Committee. The said stipulation in the advertisement was made in Note 4, which is extracted herein below:-

“4. The University shall conduct a screening test for short listing of candidates. The shortlisted candidates will make a presentation before a committee in the concerned department and other invitees of DTU, prior to appearing before the Selection Committee.”

5. The appellant appeared in the screening test, which was conducted for short-listing the candidates and was declared successful. Accordingly, he was invited for making presentation and also to appear in the interview before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee held its meetings on 04.12.2017, 05.12.2017, 06.12.2017 & 07.12.2017, and accordingly, its Minutes were prepared on 07.12.2017, according to which, one candidate belonging to the SC category; Mr.Yashdeep Singh was selected for the post in question, having secured 59 out of 100 marks. The Minutes of Meeting of the Selection Committee are on record, a perusal of which reveals that in respect of the other post reserved for SC category candidates, the Selection Committee opined that ‘None Found Suitable’(NFS). The result of the selection held pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.09.2017 was declared on 08.12.2017.

6. The appellant sought certain informations under the Right to Information Act and also made representations to the respondent – University to consider his candidature in view of the fact that in the subsequent advertisement issued on 14.05.2018, the post reserved for the SC category, which remained unfilled pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 28.09.2017, was not carried forward as a backlog vacancy. The representation made by the appellant was not decided, which impelled the appellant to institute the proceedings of W.P.(C) 4055/2