Counsel (Appearance not given) v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Judgment

1. The petitioner applied for the post of Technical Assistant in respondent No. 2 – Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University [“the University”], pursuant to an advertisement issued on

29.10.2022. He is aggrieved by a notification dated 02.06.2025, by which the entire recruitment process has been cancelled “due to administrative reasons”.

2. The advertisement in question included a total of 45 vacancies across 11 non-teaching posts under the University, including 5 posts at the level of Technical Assistant. The detailed recruitment advertisement provided the essential qualifications for each post, including the post of Technical Assistant. The vacancies for the post of Technical Assistant comprised four posts in the School of Allied Health Sciences [“SAHS”] W.P.(C) 9673/2025 Page 1 of 10 and one post in the School of Physiotherapy [“SoP”]. The qualifications provided for the post were as follows: “Educational Qualification: Essential: B.Sc. in Science (PCM/PCB)/Bachelor degree in Pharmacy/Allied Health Sciences from a recognized University/Board or equivalent with 04 years Industrial/Lab Experience in desired trade. Two years State Board Diploma or equivalent in the relevant Pharmacy/Allied Health Sciences subject/field with 05 years of Industrial/Laboratory Experience in the relevant trade.”

3. In the advertisement, the University provided inter alia the following general instructions: “2. The vacancies advertised are provisional and liable to vary (increase or decrease). In case the vacancy position is reduced to any number or even zero due to any circumstances, University will not be liable to compensate the applicant for any consequential damage/loss. 3. The University reserves the right to cancel or modify the advertisement or part of it at any stage. The number of vacancies is provisional and subject to change. 4. The University reserves the right to cancel a part or entire process of examination or a part of it due to administrative reasons and in case of unfair means, cheating or other irregularities/ malpractice noticed by the University. The University also reserves the right to cancel or set up a new examination Centre and divert the candidates to appear at that examination Centre if required.”1

4. The petitioner applied for the post of Technical Assistant, and appeared in an online test on 04.02.2023. The selection was to be made through a computer-based examination followed by a skill test/laboratory test. He was thereafter called for the skill test and was asked to submit documents.

5. By impugned communication dated 02.06.2025, recruitment process, for all the posts in question, has been cancelled. The W.P.(C) 9673/2025 Page 2 of 10 notification does not contain any detailed reason, but only refers to “administrative reasons”.

6. In order to examine the reasons for which the recruitment was cancelled, the Court called for a counter affidavit to be filed by the University.

7. The counter affidavit dated 14.08.2025, filed by the University, discloses the following reasons for cancellation: “7. That it is submitted that there have been infirmities in the recruitment process in the university during the tenure of the Ex- Vice Chancellor and in view of that Department of technical education and vigilance department, GNCTD has raised doubt about the recruitment of faculties in the university by the then Vice Chancellor and the advertisement for the various post of non-teaching staff i.e. group B and C was made during the tenure of the Ex- Vice Chancellor. 8. That it is submitted that the Deputy Director (Vigilance), Directorate of Training and Technical Education (DTTE), GNCT of Delhi, vide letter No.F.3(1272)/DTTE/Vig./2020/Shadow file/213-220 dated 17.02.2024, addressed to the then Vice Chancellor of DPSRU (who was also holding additional charge of DPSRU in addition to his substantive post as Vice Chancellor of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, GNCTD), directed that action be taken regarding certain irregularities in the recruitment process of 17 teaching posts (Professor, Associate Professor, and Assistant Professor). In the said letter, the Deputy Director (Vigilance) requested removal/dismissal in respect of the alleged illegal appointments, in accordance with Chapter V of the inquiry report dated 13.10.2023, after following due procedure as per Clause 21 of the First Statute. The said matter is presently under examination by the Competent Authorities. Copy of the letter dated 17.02.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-4. 9. That it is further submitted that in the aforesaid letter dated 17.02.2024, the Deputy Director (Vigilance), DTTE, GNCT of Delhi, also recorded that the charge of Registrar had been removed in connection with the aforesaid matter. 10. That in view of the infirmities in the recruitment process, on the finding of Vigilance Department, GNCTD Ex-Vice Chancellor was terminated from his post of Vice Chancellor, DPSRU by the Hon’ble initiation of appropriate disciplinary action 1 Emphasis supplied. W.P.(C) 9673/2025 Page 3 of 10 submitted (SAHS) and 01 post Lt. Governor of Delhi who is the Chancellor of the University in its power under the DPSRU Act and applicable service rules vide order dated 17.02.2024. Copy of the order of Hon’ble Lt. Governor dated 17.02.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-5. 11. That in Advertisement No. DPSRU/NTS/2022/01, at Serial No. 05 for the post of Technical Assistant, a total of 04 posts were advertised for the School of Allied Health Sciences the School of Physiotherapy. While the educational qualifications for the posts under SAHS were prescribed in the advertisement, the qualifications for the post under the School of Physiotherapy were not published, despite the fact that the qualifications for the two categories of posts are different. 12. That it is submitted that in respect of the post of Senior Lab Assistant (Serial No. 08 of Advertisement No. DPSRU/NTS/2022/01), the said post was sanctioned for the Pharmacy discipline at Level 4. As per the relevant recruitment rules, the educational qualifications are prescribed separately for the School of Pharmacy and the School of Allied Health Sciences. The University administration had no authority to divert a post sanctioned for the Pharmacy discipline to the Allied Health Sciences discipline. Moreover, the distribution of posts between the Pharmacy discipline and the Allied Health Sciences discipline was not specified advertisement factually and procedurally incorrect. Since the posts were sanctioned the prescribed qualifications ought to have been for the Pharmacy discipline only. 13. That the issue of the advertisement of the non-teaching staff was put up before the Board of Governors (BoG) of the University 42nd BoG meeting held on 08.04.2025 for the approval of the cancellation No. DPSRU/NTS/2022/01 due to administrative reasons i.e. suspicion regarding 3 times extension even though sufficient applications were received and the cancellation was notified on 02.06.2025. Further, even though the process started on 29.10.2022, for more than 2 years the recruitment process has not been completed and normally the process completes in a maximum period of 1 year. It is noteworthy that all applicants, including the petitioner, were permitted to claim a refund of the application fees paid by them. Copy of the agenda and the minutes of 42nd BoG meeting is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-6.”2 the Pharmacy discipline, the recruitment rules, thereby rendering Advertisement Recruitment

8. Along with the counter affidavit, the University has also placed 2 Emphasis supplied. W.P.(C) 9673/2025 Page 4 of 10 supporting material on record, including a communication dated

17.02.2024 received from the Vigilance Branch, Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi [“GNCTD”], with regard to irregularities in the recruitment process in the University during the period from 2017 to 2019, and an order dated

17.02.2024 by which the then Vice Chancellor was removed from Office on the ground of irregularities in recruitment of teaching faculty during this period.

9. The legal position, with regard to cancellation of a selection process, has recently been explained by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors3. After examining judgments in question the standpoint of manipulation, malpractices, and use of unfair methods by candidates, the Court came to the following conclusion: “19. The following principles emerge the aforesaid discussion: • When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity. • The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable. • Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719 [hereinafter, “Baishakhi Bhattacharyya”]. W.P.(C) 9673/2025 Page 5 of 10 weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process. • Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale.”

10. The position of a candidate, who has not yet been offered employment, is dealt with in Union of India v. Tarun K. Singh4 and Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. v. Dr. Vinay Kumar & Ors.5, the latter of which was cited by Mr. Akash Srivastava, learned counsel for the University. In Tarun K. Singh, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “4. The question for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court was justified in interfering with an order of cancellation passed by the competent authority and directing that the process of selection should be completed. Needless to mention that subsequent to the order of cancellation, in view of the allegation of malpractice, the departmental authorities had held an enquiry into the matter and the result of that enquiry revealed gross irregularities and illegalities as referred to in the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Consequently the process of selection to a public office, which stands vitiated by adoption of large-scale malpractice, cannot be permitted to be sustained by a court of law. That apart, an individual applicant for any particular post does not get a right to be enforced by a mandamus unless and until he is selected in the process of selection and gets the letter of appointment. In the case in hand, much before the so-called list of selection was approved by the Railway Board, the order of cancellation had emanated on the basis of complaints received from so many quarters. In view of the subsequent findings of the Enquiry Committee which has gone into the matter, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court was wholly in error in issuing the direction in question and therefore the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was fully justified in interfering with the said order of learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court committed error in following the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Allahabad