The Delhi High Court has quashed the selection process undertaken by the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA) for the post of Assistant Professor reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD), holding that a recruitment mechanism based exclusively on interview, without structured criteria or objective evaluation, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition was filed by Dr. Sachin Kumar, a PwBD candidate with 75% locomotor disability, challenging (i) the result dated 11 February 2025 declaring that no PwD candidate was found suitable, (ii) the original advertisement dated 27 December 2023, (iii) the subsequent advertisement dated 6 June 2025 converting the unfilled PwD vacancy into an EWS–PwD post, and (iv) Clause 4.1.I.B (Note) of the UGC Regulations, 2018 insofar as it permits selection solely on the basis of interview.
The Court noted that although one post was specifically reserved for PwBD candidates and 13 such candidates were shortlisted and interviewed, NIEPA recorded “none found suitable” without disclosing any reasons, internal distribution of marks, cut-off, or evaluation parameters. The Court found this to be indicative not of candidate failure, but of a flawed and opaque selection process itself
Interpreting the UGC Regulations, 2018, the Bench held that Clause 4.1.I.B cannot be read in isolation to justify a wholly interview-centric process. Reading it harmoniously with Clauses 5.2 and 6.0, the Court ruled that interview performance can only be determinative when preceded and accompanied by structured, transparent, and objective academic evaluation. Clause 4.1.I.B was therefore read down, and not struck down, to prevent its use in sustaining unguided and unstructured viva-voce-based selections.
On disability rights, the Court emphasised that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a transformative, rights-based legislation mandating substantive equality, reasonable accommodation, and meaningful implementation of reservation. It held that merely stating the absence of an upper age limit did not amount to “relaxed standards” or reasonable accommodation. The failure to apply relaxed standards under Clause 11.1 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 15 January 2018 was found to be contrary to law, particularly in light of Supreme Court precedents mandating effective implementation of PwBD reservations.
The Court further held that PwBD reservation is horizontal in nature and cuts across all vertical categories. The conversion of the unfilled PwBD vacancy into an EWS–PwBD vacancy was declared illegal, being contrary to Section 34 of the RPwD Act and DoPT guidelines governing carry forward of PwBD vacancies. The Bench cautioned that such premature conversion risks systematically eroding statutory reservations for persons with disabilities.
Rejecting the respondents’ objection of estoppel, the Court held that participation in a selection process does not bar a candidate from challenging the legality of the process where the challenge goes to the root of constitutional and statutory violations.
The impugned result and advertisements were accordingly set aside, and NIEPA was directed to undertake a fresh, lawful recruitment process consistent with constitutional guarantees, the RPwD Act, and the UGC regulatory framework.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Ms. Ambica Sood, Mr. Ritik Raghuwanshi, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs. for R- 1
Mr. Parmanand Gaur, Standing Counsel for UGC with Mr. Vibhav Mishra and Ms. Megha Gaur, Advocates for R-2
Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC with Ms. Vandana Sachdeva, Mr. Ankit Choudhary and Mr. Sumit Choudhary, Advocates for R-3
