New Delhi
The Delhi high court set aside Delhi University’s (DU’s) decision to put on hold the recruitment of laboratory attendants and library assistants, and directed it to complete the process, terming it a “classic case of scant disregard for fairness in action” and “motivated reasoning”.
In July 2023, DU issued appointment letters to multiple individuals, and 15 library attendants and nine laboratory attendants joined by August 24. Before several others could join, DU in two notifications dated August 25 and 29 put on hold the joining process and also barred those who had joined. Aggrieved appointees moved the high court, contending that the notification failed to provide the reason for the action.
DU justified its move in court, saying the notification was issued as university officials, in informal interactions with those who had already joined, observed that their competency did not match their test scores and led the university to suspect “unfair means”.
DU, represented by advocate Mohinder Rupal, said a committee to probe the matter concluded in October 2024 that the recruitment exams for both posts were compromised. It was based on an analysis of data, such as the number of suspected centres, the number of selected candidates, their scores in classes 10 and 12, and the geographical locations of the centres, among others.
In an order dated May 30, which was released later, a bench of justice Jyoti Singh said: “Strangely, despite multiple affidavits filed by the University, it has not come to light as to who were the officials who interacted and where. There is no disclosure on the nature of interaction and/or the questions put to the candidates to assess their knowledge, competency and calibre and how the answers to the questions led to the assumption that unfair means were allegedly used by these 9 candidates in the examination.The data analysis exercise is nothing but a guise to cover up the illegal and arbitrary decision of the University to stall the joining of selected candidates and does not inspire any confidence.”
“Before drawing the curtains, I may pen down that because of the arbitrary and illegal action of the University, Petitioners have lost nearly two crucial years of their lives and careers. Some of the Petitioners had in fact resigned from their earlier jobs when offer letters were received from the University and many have become overage for appearing in any other examination. This is a classic case of scant regard for fairness in action and motivated reasoning and the University must introspect!!!,” justice Jyoti Singh said.
In her 62-page ruling, justice Singh also underscored the dangerous implications of endorsing informal interactions pursuant to completion of the selection process and said that the same, besides breeding corruption, had the potential to make the examination process meaningless and open doors for “arbitrariness, pick and choose, favouritism”.
“There is, in fact, a danger in endorsing this kind of an informal interaction, assuming there was one. If it is left open to employers to informally interact with selected candidates and judge their calibre, knowledge or competence, at the time of reporting for joining, the selection process will become subjective and open doors to arbitrariness, pick and choose, favouritism, making the examination meaningless, besides breeding corruption,” the court said.