Kaustuv Datta & Ors vs University Of Delhi & Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~3 & 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 12 May, 2026.
+ W.P.(C) 2780/2013
KAUSTUV DATTA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Ankur Gulyani Panda,
Advocate.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Mr. Hardik
Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and
Ms. Tripta Sharma, Advocates for
University.
Mr. Arjun Harkauli and Mr. Harsh
Tyagi, Advocates for UGC.
+ W.P.(C) 792/2018, CM APPL. 3435/2018
DR KAUSTUV DATTA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Ankur Gulyani Panda,
Advocate.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohinder Rupal, Mr. Hardik
Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and
Ms. Tripta Sharma, Advocates for
University.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. These petitions arise out of a common dispute concerning fixation of
Academic Grade Pay [“ AGP ”] of the Petitioners, who were appointed as
Assistant Professors in the University of Delhi [“ DU ”]. W.P.(C) 2780/2013
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 1 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
challenges the office orders issued by DU in March and April 2013,
whereby the AGP of the Petitioners was retrospectively refixed at AGP 6000
in place of AGP 7000/8000. W.P.(C) 792/2018 challenges the consequential
th
recovery proceedings, including orders dated 28 December, 2017 and
deductions made from the salaries of the Petitioners. Since the issues arising
in both petitions are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this
common order.
Factual Background
2. In May 2009, DU issued an advertisement inviting applications for
faculty positions in various departments, including posts of Assistant
Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in science departments,
interdisciplinary sciences and emerging areas of research. The Petitioners
applied pursuant to the said advertisement, were considered by Selection
Committees, and recommendations were thereafter placed before the
Executive Council of DU, which approved the Petitioners in its meetings
th th th
held on 6 October, 2009, 11 December, 2009 and 9 February, 2010.
Pursuant thereto, offer letters were issued to the Petitioners placing some of
them in PB-III with AGP 7000 and others in PB-III with AGP 8000. The
Petitioners accepted the offers and joined DU. Office orders were thereafter
issued fixing their pay in the corresponding AGP. The Petitioners also
entered into agreements of service with DU and were subsequently
confirmed in service. The Executive Council thereafter ratified the
st
confirmations on 21 March, 2012.
th
3. On 8 November, 2012, UGC addressed a communication to the
Registrar of DU recording that, during discussions on budget estimates, it
had noticed that DU had granted AGP 7000/8000 to certain Assistant
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 2 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
Professors on the basis of recommendations made by the Selection
Committees instead of placing them at AGP 6000. UGC took the position
that grant of higher AGP to Assistant Professors was contrary to the UGC
Regulations, 2010 and called upon DU to take corrective measures, failing
which proportionate maintenance grant would be deducted while finalising
the revised estimates for 2012-2013.
th st
4. Thereafter, DU issued office orders dated 30 March, 2013, 1 April,
nd rd th
2013, 2 April, 2013, 3 April, 2013 and 8 April, 2013, whereby the AGP
of the Petitioners was refixed at AGP 6000 retrospectively from their
respective dates of joining. The earlier office orders fixing AGP at
7000/8000 were stated to be “ deemed amended accordingly ”.
5. The Petitioners submitted representations against the said action.
According to the Petitioners, the impugned orders affected not only their
pay, but also their seniority and future career progression. W.P.(C)
2780/2013 was thereafter instituted challenging the aforesaid refixation
nd
orders. By order dated 22 November, 2013, this Court declined interim
relief at that stage, while observing that, in the event the Petitioners
ultimately succeeded, appropriate monetary relief could be granted at the
stage of final disposal.
6. In November 2017, DU initiated recovery proceedings in respect of
the amounts alleged to have been paid in excess pursuant to the earlier
fixation of AGP. The Petitioners submitted representations requesting that
recovery be stopped or kept in abeyance during the pendency of W.P.(C)
2780/2013. This led to filing of W.P.(C) 11411/2017. In that proceedings,
th
by order dated 20 December, 2017, DU was directed to consider the
representations submitted by the Petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 3 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
th
7. DU thereafter passed the orders dated 28 December, 2017 rejecting
the request for waiver of recovery or for keeping the same in abeyance, and
th
decided to proceed with recovery. The orders dated 28 December, 2017,
along with the consequential deductions made from the salaries of the
Petitioners, form the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) 792/2018. By
th
order dated 29 January, 2018, the recovery proceedings were stayed.
Petitioners’ Contentions
8. In support of the petitions, Mrs. Ankur Gulyani Panda, counsel for the
Petitioners, makes the following submissions:
8.1. The office orders issued by DU in March and April 2013 are without
jurisdiction, contrary to the Delhi University Act, 1922 [“ DU Act ”], Statutes
and Ordinances, and violative of principles of natural justice. The Petitioners
were not heard before a decision was taken to retrospectively alter their
AGP from their respective dates of joining. The aforesaid action is not a
mere correction of a clerical error, but one affecting pay, seniority,
promotional avenues, career advancement and pensionary consequences.
8.2. The Petitioners were appointed at AGP 7000/8000 after completion of
a full statutory process. The Selection Committees considered their
academic qualifications, post-doctoral experience, publications and
suitability. The Executive Council accepted those recommendations. Offer
letters were thereafter issued, the Petitioners joined service, office orders
fixing pay were issued, service agreements were executed, probation was
completed and confirmation followed. The Executive Council thereafter
ratified the confirmations. Thus, DU cannot, years later, characterise the
grant of AGP 7000/8000 as an inadvertent error.
8.3. AGP 7000/8000 was not merely a pay entry. It denoted the level at
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 4 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
which the Petitioners were placed as Assistant Professors, corresponding to
their qualifications and experience. It had a direct bearing on seniority and
progression under the Career Advancement Scheme. Reduction of AGP
from 8000/7000 to 6000 amounts to a retrospective downgrading of
placement. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be characterised as pay
refixation simpliciter.
8.4. Reliance is placed on Ordinance XI of DU, under which teachers
appointed by DU are to be paid salaries on such scales as the Executive
Council may decide from time to time. Under the statutory scheme
governing selection, if the Executive Council was unable to accept the
recommendation of the Selection Committee, it was required to record
reasons and follow the prescribed statutory course. Having accepted the
recommendations and acted upon them, the result could not later be reversed
by administrative orders.
8.5. The office orders issued in March and April 2013 amount, in
substance, to a review of an earlier decision of the Executive Council. Under
the statutory framework governing DU, such review could not have been
undertaken through administrative office orders. As per Section 18 of the
DU Act, the power to review decisions of the Executive Council vests in the
th
University Court. Further, even the Executive Council meeting dated 25
th
March, 2013 merely recorded the UGC communication dated 8 November,
2012 and did not itself resolve to retrospectively downgrade the Petitioners.
8.6. Reliance is also placed upon the service agreements executed between
the Petitioners and DU. Clause 3 of the standard agreement contemplates
that “ wherever there is any change in the nature of appointment or the
emoluments ”, particulars of such change are to be recorded, under the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 5 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
signatures of the parties. The clause further protects increments from being
withheld or postponed except by resolution of the Executive Council after
affording opportunity to make a written representation. The impugned
orders bypass these contractual and statutory safeguards.
8.7. Neither DU nor UGC has identified any provision in the UGC
Regulations, 2010 which, in express terms, prohibits direct recruitment or
initial placement of an Assistant Professor at AGP 7000/8000. Regulation
3.1.0 of the aforesaid Regulations recognises direct recruitment to the posts
of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors through an all-
India advertisement and selection by duly constituted Selection Committees.
The Regulations, therefore, cannot be read to mean that every direct recruit
Assistant Professor, irrespective of qualifications, experience, academic
profile or the Selection Committee’s assessment, must enter service only at
AGP 6000.
th
8.8. The UGC Regulations, 2010 came into force on 30 June, 2010, by
which time several Petitioners had already received their offers of
appointment and joined DU. In any event, the Regulations were themselves
framed on the foundation of the Ministry of Human Resource Development
st
[“ MHRD ”] scheme dated 31 December, 2008, a scheme which DU had
contemporaneously applied while fixing the Petitioners’ pay. The same
regulatory framework, therefore, could not subsequently be invoked to
unsettle appointments already made, acted upon and followed by
confirmation.
8.9. The action of refixation is also violative of the doctrines of legitimate
expectation and promissory estoppel. The Petitioners, acting upon formal
offers and confirmations issued by DU, altered their position by leaving
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 6 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
existing positions and research opportunities in India and abroad. DU, after
having acted upon the appointments for years, could not retrospectively
withdraw the very basis on which the Petitioners entered service.
8.10. UGC’s authority to prescribe minimum qualifications and norms for
maintaining standards in higher education is not in dispute. The grievance,
however, is that such authority could not be exercised through a budget-
related communication, coupled with a threat of deduction of grants, so as to
compel a statutory University to retrospectively demote confirmed teachers
appointed through its own statutory bodies.
8.11. Despite having earlier acted upon, implemented and confirmed the
recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Executive Council,
DU proceeded to retrospectively downgrade the Petitioners solely on
th
account of the UGC communication dated 8 November, 2012 threatening
deduction of grants. This indicates that DU did not consider its own
statutory decision erroneous on merits, but merely yielded to the funding
authority i.e., UGC.
8.12. The recovery proceedings are also unsustainable. The Petitioners
made no misrepresentation and played no role in fixation of pay. The pay
was fixed by the competent authorities of DU after formal selection,
appointment and joining. Recovery was initiated several years later, while
the legality of the refixation itself remained pending before this Court in
W.P.(C) 2780/2013. The deductions have been steep and onerous. The
th
orders dated 28 December, 2017 have been passed without any meaningful
consideration of the Petitioners’ representations and without appreciating
that the alleged excess payment flowed entirely from DU’s own formal
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 7 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
1
orders. Reliance is also placed on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih .
DU’s Contentions
9. On the other hand, Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, counsel for DU, makes
the following submissions:
9.1. The advertisement issued by DU contemplated appointment of
Assistant Professors in PB-III with AGP 6000. If higher AGP was
inadvertently offered by the University, the Petitioners cannot invoke
estoppel against law. The Petitioners accepted appointment as Assistant
Professors and cannot claim a higher grade pay contrary to the governing
norms and regulatory framework.
9.2. The impugned office orders were issued pursuant to the UGC letter
th
dated 8 November, 2012. UGC is the funding body and has prescribed
binding norms governing pay scales and AGP. DU was, therefore, bound to
comply with the UGC Regulations and directions. Once UGC informed DU
that grant of AGP 7000/8000 to Assistant Professors was contrary to the
UGC Regulations, 2010, DU had no option but to refix the pay. Fixation of
AGP is governed by the UGC regulatory framework, and DU has no
objection to the grant of higher AGP to the Petitioners, provided such grant
conforms to and is approved under the applicable UGC norms.
9.3. Pay scales must necessarily conform to law. If the original fixation
was contrary to the applicable statutory and regulatory framework,
correction of pay cannot be interdicted on grounds of legitimate expectation
or estoppel. There can be no estoppel against statute. Reliance is placed on
2
the decisions in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey) ,
1
(2015) 4 SCC 334.
2
(2022) 19 SCC 388.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 8 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
3
Ankita Thakur & Ors. v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission & Ors , K.
4
Asokan v. Nuclear Science Centre & Ors. , Sudhir Kumar Taneja v.
5 6
University of Delhi & Ors. and Dr. Meera Sood v. University of Delhi .
9.4. The Petitioners’ challenge is untenable as, at the initial stage, they did
th
not assail the UGC letter dated 8 November, 2012. The impugned office
orders were not an independent decision taken by DU, but merely
consequential implementation of UGC’s directions. Unless the UGC
communication is itself set aside, the consequential office orders issued by
DU cannot be quashed in isolation. The Petitioners themselves rely upon the
UGC Regulations, 2010 and the AGP structure contemplated therein.
Having founded their case on the said regulatory framework, the Petitioners
th
cannot selectively disregard the UGC communication dated 8 November,
2012 issued under the same framework.
9.5. Once pay was wrongly fixed, excess payment made from public funds
must ordinarily be recovered. Reliance on Rafiq Masih is misplaced, since
the said decision does not create an absolute bar against recovery in every
case. The Petitioners cannot claim blanket immunity from recovery.
UGC’s Contentions
10. Mr. Arjun Harkauli, counsel for UGC, further submits as follows:
10.1. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are binding on DU, a Central University
maintained and funded through the UGC framework, and apply to
universities established or incorporated under a Central Act. Reliance is
3
(2024) 19 SCC 745.
4
LPA 395/2017.
5
LPA 491/2019.
6
LPA 142/2022.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 9 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
7
placed on University of Delhi v. Raj Singh to contend that Regulations
framed by UGC for maintaining standards in higher education have binding
force and must be complied with by universities. Reference is also made to
Sections 12 and 26 of the UGC Act concerning the powers of the
Commission to maintain standards and frame binding Regulations.
10.2. The UGC Regulations, 2010 lay down not only minimum
qualifications, but also the applicable pay structure and service conditions
for teachers in universities and colleges. The Regulations have been framed
st
pursuant to the MHRD scheme dated 31 December, 2008 governing
revision of pay scales and service conditions of teachers in Central
Universities. As per the Regulations, a person entering the teaching
profession as an Assistant Professor is to be placed in PB-III with AGP
6000. Movement thereafter to AGP 7000 and 8000 is governed by
prescribed service length, API criteria, PBAS conditions and the Career
Advancement Scheme, and is not a matter of initial placement at the
discretion of a Selection Committee.
th
10.3. The UGC letter dated 8 November, 2012 was issued after it was
noticed, during discussions on the budget estimates for 2012-2013, that DU
had granted AGP 7000/8000 to approximately 73 Assistant Professors on
the basis of Selection Committee recommendations instead of placing them
at AGP 6000. UGC treated this as a violation of the 2010 Regulations and
called upon DU to withdraw the higher AGP. The letter further conveyed
that, failing corrective action, proportionate maintenance grant would be
deducted while finalising the revised estimates for 2012-2013.
Implementation of the revised pay scheme itself was subject to acceptance
7
AIR 1995 SC 336.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 10 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
of the conditions stipulated in the UGC framework and corresponding
amendment of DU’s statutes and ordinances.
10.4. DU itself undertook to implement the UGC Regulations, 2010 and
was, therefore, bound to rectify any deviation therefrom. Once UGC took
the view that grant of AGP 7000/8000 to direct recruit Assistant Professors
was impermissible, DU could not continue to disburse public funds contrary
to the governing Regulations. The fact that the Petitioners had been issued
offer letters mentioning higher AGP, or had received salary on that basis for
some time, cannot confer an enforceable right.
10.5. No principle of estoppel or legitimate expectation can be invoked
against binding Regulations. If DU committed an error in initially granting
higher AGP, such error could be corrected once noticed.
Issues for Determination
11. Having heard counsel for the parties and examined the record, the
following issues arise for determination:
th st
(i) Whether the impugned office orders dated 30 March, 2013, 1 April,
nd rd th
2013, 2 April, 2013, 3 April, 2013 and 8 April, 2013 merely involved
refixation of pay, or whether they affected the Petitioners’ placement and
service conditions.
(ii) Whether the Petitioners’ placement at AGP 7000/8000, following
recommendation by the Selection Committees, approval by the Executive
Council, issuance of appointment and pay-fixation orders, and subsequent
confirmation in service, could be treated as an inadvertent error liable to
retrospective correction.
(iii) Whether, on a proper construction of the UGC Regulations, 2010, DU
was prohibited from directly recruiting or placing Assistant Professors at
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 11 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
AGP 7000/8000 on the basis of merit, qualifications, experience and
assessment by the Selection Committees.
th
(iv) Whether DU could act upon the UGC letter dated 8 November, 2012
by issuing retrospective refixation orders without prior notice or opportunity
of hearing to the Petitioners.
(v) Whether the refixation orders amounted, in substance, to a review of
earlier decisions of the Executive Council and, if so, whether such action
was permissible under the DU Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances, and the
service agreements executed within that framework.
(vi) Whether the Petitioners are entitled to continuation/restoration of
AGP 7000/8000 together with consequential service and monetary benefits.
th
(vii) Whether the recovery orders dated 28 December, 2017 and the
consequential deductions challenged in W.P.(C) 792/2018 are sustainable.
Discussion & Analysis
Nature and Character of the Impugned Refixation Action
12. The first enquiry must be directed to the true character of the
impugned refixation action. If the office orders issued in March and April
2013 merely corrected a computational or clerical error in pay fixation, they
would stand on one footing. If, however, they altered the level at which the
Petitioners had been selected, appointed, confirmed and permitted to serve,
the action would have to satisfy a much stricter standard of statutory
authority, procedural fairness and lawful justification.
13. The record does not permit the impugned refixation orders to be
treated as mere arithmetical corrections. The higher AGP appears at every
material stage of the employment relationship. It is reflected in the Selection
Committee process as approved by the Executive Council. It is carried into
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 12 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
the offer letters. It is repeated in the office orders issued after joining. It
informs the service agreements through the appointment and emoluments
incorporated therein. It also finds place in the confirmation orders. The
Petitioners thereafter served for years on that basis. The matter is, therefore,
far removed from a stray/mistaken figure in a pay bill.
14. DU’s own Counter Affidavit does not sit comfortably with the theory
of an inadvertent pay error. DU pleads that, if it had inadvertently offered a
higher AGP, the Petitioners could not invoke estoppel. It further states that
UGC directed refixation and that DU merely implemented the UGC
decision. At the same time, DU also states that it has no objection to grant of
higher AGP and pay scale to the Petitioners, provided the same conforms to
and is approved under the applicable UGC norms. These averments do not
describe a simple clerical mistake discovered in DU’s records. Rather, they
indicate a decision formally taken, acted upon over a considerable period,
and subsequently sought to be withdrawn after UGC objected to its
continuance. The question that therefore arises is whether such retrospective
withdrawal was legally permissible.
Statutory Character of the Petitioners’ Appointments
15. DU is a statutory University. Its actions in matters concerning
appointment of teachers are governed by the DU Act, the Statutes, the
Ordinances and applicable UGC norms. The Selection Committees and the
Executive Council perform substantive statutory functions in matters of
appointment. Once the Executive Council accepted the recommendations of
the Selection Committees and DU issued formal offer letters on that basis,
the matter moved beyond the stage of internal deliberation and assumed the
character of a statutory appointment.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 13 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
16. The service agreements executed between the Petitioners and DU
reinforce this position. The agreements record that the teachers were
appointed as members of the teaching staff of DU and were governed by the
DU Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances. They provide for probation and
confirmation and also contain safeguards relating to alteration of service
conditions. Clause 3 of the said agreement contemplates that any change in
the nature of appointment or emoluments is to be recorded in Schedule I
annexed thereto, under the signatures of the parties. It further provides that
increments are not to be withheld or postponed except by resolution of the
Executive Council after affording an opportunity of representation.
17. These clauses may not constitute an exhaustive code governing every
dispute relating to pay fixation. They are, however, significant in
understanding the nature of the service relationship between the parties. The
Petitioners were not engaged under a purely administrative arrangement
capable of unilateral alteration at will. Their appointments were made within
a statutory framework, followed by formal service agreements and
confirmation in service. In these circumstances, DU could not, through
administrative office orders issued at the level of the Assistant Registrar,
retrospectively alter an essential service incident flowing from selection,
appointment, pay fixation and confirmation.
Whether the UGC Regulations, 2010 Prohibited Placement at AGP
7000/8000
18. The next enquiry is whether the Petitioners’ original placement at
AGP 7000/8000 was contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2010. If a clear
statutory or regulatory prohibition is established, considerations of fairness,
hardship or expectation would necessarily recede. If, however, the alleged
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 14 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
prohibition rests upon an interpretation not borne out by the text or scheme
of the Regulations, the foundation for retrospective refixation becomes
considerably weaker.
19. The binding force of the UGC Regulations is not in dispute. In Raj
Singh , the Supreme Court recognised that the UGC Act was enacted under
Entry 66 of List I for coordination and determination of standards in
institutions of higher education, and that Regulations framed thereunder for
maintaining standards have binding force upon the universities to which
they apply. The Court further observed that the powers conferred upon the
UGC under Sections 12 and 26 are wide-ranging and extend to the
maintenance of standards of teaching and appointment. The real issue in the
present case, however, is not whether the UGC Regulations bind DU, but
whether the UGC Regulations, 2010, properly construed, prohibited the
placement granted to the Petitioners.
20. UGC principally relies upon the Schedule to Clause 6.8.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2010. The Schedule provides that persons entering the teaching
profession in universities and colleges shall be designated as Assistant
Professors and placed in “ Pay Band III of Rs. 15,600 - 39,100 with AGP of
Rs. 6,000 ”. It further contemplates movement from AGP 6000 to AGP 7000
and thereafter to AGP 8000 upon completion of prescribed service
requirements and fulfilment of API/PBAS conditions. According to UGC,
the scheme of the Regulations does not permit direct placement of Assistant
Professors at AGP 7000/8000 at the stage of initial appointment.
21. The Petitioners, on the other hand, rely upon Regulation 3.1.0, which
contemplates direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors,
Associate Professors and Professors through all-India advertisement and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 15 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
selection by duly constituted Selection Committees. It is also their case that
the 2010 Regulations neither create separate eligibility structures for direct
recruitment at AGP 6000, 7000 and 8000, nor expressly prohibit a Selection
Committee from recommending placement at AGP 7000/8000 on the basis
of qualifications, experience and academic merit.
22. The Court is unable to find any express prohibition in the Regulations
against the placement granted to the Petitioners. The Schedule relied upon
by UGC undoubtedly prescribes the ordinary entry placement and the
scheme of progression under the Career Advancement Scheme for Assistant
Professors. However, it does not expressly provide that every direct recruit
Assistant Professor, irrespective of prior service, post-doctoral experience,
qualifications or Selection Committee assessment, must invariably enter
only at AGP 6000. Had such an absolute prohibition been intended, the
Regulations could reasonably have stated so in express terms.
23. This is also not a case where the Petitioners were ineligible for
appointment. No such case has been pleaded. The dispute is confined to the
AGP at which the Petitioners were placed after being found eligible and
selected. That distinction is material. A case involving appointment of an
ineligible candidate stands on a different footing from a dispute concerning
placement of an otherwise eligible and duly selected candidate within the
Assistant Professor structure.
th
24. The UGC communication dated 8 November, 2012 itself records that
AGP 7000/8000 had been granted by DU “ on the basis of the
recommendations of the Selection Committee ”. UGC did not state that the
Petitioners were ineligible, that the Selection Committees were improperly
constituted, or that the Executive Council lacked authority to approve the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 16 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
appointments. Its objection was confined to the grant of higher AGP on the
interpretation that AGP 6000 alone was permissible under the Regulations.
25. It is also significant that DU’s contemporaneous conduct does not
support the idea of inadvertence. The offer letters were formally issued. The
office orders reflected the same placement. The service agreements
proceeded on that basis. The confirmations were not made subject to future
clarification by UGC. Further, when the Petitioners were confirmed and the
Executive Council ratified those confirmations, the UGC Regulations, 2010
were already in force. If the placement was plainly impermissible under the
governing framework, it becomes difficult to explain why DU repeatedly
affirmed the same position at successive statutory stages.
26. In service jurisprudence, a Court does not lightly presume illegality
where competent statutory authorities have acted consistently over a
considerable period, employees have altered their position accordingly, and
the alleged illegality rests upon a later interpretative objection rather than an
express statutory prohibition.
27. The submission founded on the principle that there can be no estoppel
against statute is unexceptionable as a matter of law. Legitimate expectation
cannot override a statutory prohibition. However, before that principle can
be invoked, the statutory command alleged to have been violated must first
be clearly identified. In the present case, the Respondents have not
demonstrated any express provision rendering the Petitioners’ placement at
AGP 7000/8000 void ab initio .
28. This is where Gitashree Dutta requires careful application. The
Supreme Court reiterated that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot
prevail where the action of the public authority is in conformity with law, in
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 17 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
public interest, or undertaken to enforce the mandate of a statute. It was
further observed that the question whether a legitimate expectation deserves
protection must be assessed not from the claimant’s perspective, but in the
larger public interest. However, the applicability of that principle in the
present case necessarily turns on whether the Respondents have first
established that the Petitioners’ original placement was contrary to a binding
statutory or regulatory prohibition. For the reasons already discussed, the
Court is unable to find any such clear prohibition in the 2010 Regulations.
29. The Petitioners’ case also does not rest merely on a plea of legitimate
expectation. It arises from completed statutory and administrative actions.
The Selection Committees recommended the Petitioners, the Executive
Council approved those recommendations, DU issued offer letters, the
Petitioners joined service, service agreements were executed, and the
Petitioners were thereafter confirmed in service. The present case is,
therefore, materially different from Gitashree Dutta , where the Supreme
Court was dealing with candidates participating in an unfinalised selection
process. Here, the impugned action seeks to retrospectively alter an
appointment and service placement already acted upon over several years. In
the absence of any demonstrated statutory or regulatory prohibition
rendering the original placement impermissible, Gitashree Dutta does not
support such retrospective withdrawal.
30. The reliance placed on K. Asokan is misplaced. In that case, the
advertisement invited applications for the post in the pay scale of INR 2200-
4000. The Selection Committee recommended the appellant’s appointment
in that very scale, albeit with four increments, and the offer of appointment
expressly reflected the same pay scale. The appellant accepted the offer with
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 18 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
full knowledge of the terms of appointment and thereafter sought placement
in the higher Scientist-D scale of INR 3000-4500 on the basis of his
qualifications and experience. The Division Bench held that, having
consciously accepted appointment in the advertised scale, the appellant
could not subsequently challenge the pay grade offered to him and accepted
by him, particularly when the claim was not founded on any statutory basis.
The present case stands on an entirely different footing. The Petitioners are
not seeking enhancement of AGP after accepting appointment at AGP 6000.
They seek to resist retrospective reduction from the AGP at which they were
selected, appointed, paid and thereafter confirmed in service.
31. The reliance placed on Ankita Thakur is equally misplaced. That
decision reiterates that eligibility conditions prescribed in the recruitment
rules or advertisement must ordinarily be fulfilled by the last date for
submission of applications, and that relaxation of essential eligibility
requirements cannot be effected midstream unless such power is specifically
reserved and duly publicised so as to preserve equality of opportunity under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The present case, however, does not
concern relaxation of any essential eligibility condition or enlargement of
the zone of eligibility after commencement of the recruitment process. The
Respondents do not contend that any Petitioner lacked the prescribed
qualifications for appointment as Assistant Professor. The controversy
concerns only the placement granted to otherwise eligible candidates who
were selected and appointed through the prescribed process. Ankita Thakur ,
therefore, does not govern the present controversy.
32. The reliance placed on Sudhir Kumar Taneja and Dr. Meera Sood
also does not advance the Respondents’ case. Those decisions concerned
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 19 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
Directors of Physical Education who claimed the benefit of superannuation
at the age of 65 years on the basis of redesignation as Lecturers and
subsequent placement as Readers/Associate Professors under the Merit
Promotion Scheme. The claims were rejected because the governing UGC
framework, Ordinances and statutory scheme continued to treat Directors of
Physical Education as a distinct category with separate service conditions
and a separate age of superannuation, notwithstanding such redesignation or
financial upgradation. The present case is different. The Petitioners do not
seek parity with another cadre or claim benefits attached to a post to which
they were never appointed. They were directly recruited and appointed as
Assistant Professors through the prescribed selection process itself. Their
grievance is confined to the retrospective alteration of the AGP at which
they were selected, appointed, paid and thereafter confirmed in service.
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
33. The requirements of natural justice also could not have been
dispensed with in the facts of the present case. The impugned refixation
orders carried immediate and serious civil consequences. They
retrospectively reduced the Petitioners’ AGP, altered their pay structure,
affected their seniority and subsequently formed the basis of recovery
proceedings. An action of this nature could not have been taken without
prior notice to the Petitioners. They ought to have been informed that DU
proposed to revisit their AGP on the basis of the UGC communication dated
th
8 November, 2012 and afforded an opportunity to respond to both the
factual premise and legal basis of the proposed action.
34. The Respondents contend that such an opportunity would have served
no purpose since the UGC Regulations were binding and DU had no
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 20 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
discretion in the matter. The submission cannot be accepted. Principles of
natural justice cannot be reduced to an empty formality merely because the
authority considers the conclusion to be self-evident. The Petitioners had
substantial grounds to urge, including the statutory character of their
appointments, the recommendations of the Selection Committees, the
approval granted by the Executive Council, the effect of confirmation, the
absence, according to them, of any express prohibition in the Regulations,
the retrospective impact of the proposed action, and the distinction between
initial placement and movement under the Career Advancement Scheme.
These objections went to the legality of the proposed action and required
consideration before any adverse order was passed.
8
35. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. , the Supreme Court observed
that where, on admitted or indisputable facts, only one conclusion is possible
and under the law only one result is permissible, the Court may decline to
issue a writ to compel observance of natural justice, since courts do not issue
futile writs. However, the Court cautioned against applying that principle in
situations where the conclusions are themselves controversial or open to
debate. The present case does not fall within the limited exception
recognised in S.L. Kapoor . The record, the rival submissions and the nature
of the controversy itself demonstrate that the matter was open to serious
debate. The Petitioners had a substantive response to the proposed action,
which DU was required to consider before retrospectively altering their
service conditions.
Validity of the Decision-Making Process
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 21 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
36. The impugned office orders suffer from a further infirmity. They rest
th
substantially upon the UGC communication dated 8 November, 2012. The
validity of an administrative order must ordinarily be tested on the reasons
disclosed therein. As held in Mohindhr Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election
9
Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. , an order cannot subsequently be
supplemented by reasons furnished through affidavits or submissions. DU’s
later reliance on inadvertence, estoppel, the advertisement terms and the
alleged statutory prohibition cannot enlarge the foundation of the impugned
orders. The orders themselves do not disclose any independent consideration
of the Petitioners’ appointment process, the approvals granted by the
Executive Council, the subsequent confirmations, the service agreements, or
the consequences of retrospective refixation.
th
37. The UGC communication dated 8 November, 2012 was also not in
the nature of a reasoned adjudication of the Petitioners’ service rights. It was
issued in the context of budget estimates and conveyed that, failing
corrective action, proportionate maintenance grant would be deducted. UGC
may, where the governing framework so permits, insist upon compliance
with binding Regulations. However, a budget-linked communication
carrying the consequence of grant deduction could not relieve DU of its
obligation to independently examine the matter through its competent
statutory authorities, particularly where confirmed teachers were proposed to
be retrospectively deprived of pay, seniority and service progression.
38. The Court is conscious that public funds are involved and that DU, as
a University governed by the UGC framework, is required to comply with
8
(1980) 4 SCC 379.
9
(1978) 1 SCC 405.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 22 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
binding UGC norms. Those considerations, however, do not dilute the
requirements of lawful decision-making. If DU was of the view that its
earlier decision was contrary to binding Regulations, it was required to
identify the precise illegality, place the matter before the competent statutory
authority, issue notice to the affected teachers, consider their response, and
thereafter pass a reasoned decision. The record does not indicate that any
such exercise was undertaken before issuance of the impugned office orders.
th
Non-Challenge to UGC Letter dated 8 November, 2012
39. The objection that the Petitioners did not initially challenge the UGC
th
communication dated 8 November, 2012 does not defeat the present
petitions. The operative action affecting the Petitioners’ service conditions
consisted of DU’s refixation orders, since it was those orders which
retrospectively altered the Petitioners’ AGP and formed the basis for
consequential recovery proceedings. The UGC communication, by itself,
neither refixed the Petitioners’ pay nor amended their service conditions. In
any event, UGC is before the Court, has filed its Counter Affidavit and has
been fully heard. The legality of the impugned action can therefore be
examined in the presence of all necessary parties, and no prejudice is shown
to arise on that account.
Scope and Limits of the Present Decision
40. The scope of the present decision must be clearly understood. This
Court is not holding that every direct recruit Assistant Professor is
necessarily entitled to AGP 7000/8000; nor is it holding that higher
qualifications, by themselves, confer an automatic right to a higher AGP.
The findings in the present case are confined to the particular fact of this
case, namely that the Petitioners were placed at AGP 7000/8000 after
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 23 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
recommendation by the Selection Committees, approval by the Executive
Council, issuance of formal offer letters, joining, pay fixation, execution of
service agreements and subsequent confirmation in service. In the absence
of any express statutory prohibition shown to render such placement void,
DU could not retrospectively reduce the Petitioners to AGP 6000 through
administrative office orders issued without notice and founded substantially
upon UGC’s subsequent objection. The impugned refixation orders
challenged in W.P.(C) 2780/2013 therefore cannot be sustained.
Aspect of Recovery
41. Once the retrospective refixation orders are found unsustainable, the
foundation for the recovery proceedings also ceases to survive. The recovery
th
orders dated 28 December, 2017 proceeded on the assumption that the
Petitioners had been wrongly placed at AGP 7000/8000 and had
consequently received excess payment. If the underlying refixation itself
cannot be sustained, the consequential recovery action cannot independently
survive.
42. Even otherwise, the recovery proceedings suffer from serious legal
and equitable infirmities. The Petitioners did not secure the higher AGP
through fraud, concealment or misrepresentation. Their pay was fixed by
DU after Selection Committee recommendations, approval by the Executive
Council, issuance of offer letters and formal office orders. The Petitioners
accepted the appointments on the terms offered by DU and served for
several years on that basis.
43. In Rafiq Masih , the Supreme Court held that recovery of excess
payments may be interdicted where such recovery would be “ iniquitous or
harsh or arbitrary ” so as to far outweigh the employer’s right to recover.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 24 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
The Court clarified that it was not possible to postulate all situations of
hardship and, therefore, identified certain categories, “ as a ready reference ”,
where recoveries would be impermissible in law. The present case bears
several features which weighed with the Supreme Court in restraining
recovery, including the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part
of the employees, the prolonged period over which the payments were made,
and the fact that the payments were made pursuant to formal orders issued
by the employer itself.
th
44. The orders dated 28 December, 2017 also do not indicate any
substantive consideration of the Petitioners’ representations. The Petitioners
had specifically invoked the pendency of W.P.(C) 2780/2013, the absence of
misrepresentation on their part, the consequences of recovery and the
principles recognised in Rafiq Masih . The impugned recovery orders
substantially reiterate DU’s position that the higher AGP was contrary to the
UGC Regulations and that recovery was therefore justified. Thus, the core
objections raised by the Petitioners were not meaningfully addressed.
Conclusion & Relief
45. For the reasons aforesaid, W.P.(C) 2780/2013 is allowed. The office
th st nd rd
orders dated 30 March, 2013, 1 April, 2013, 2 April, 2013, 3 April,
th
2013 and 8 April, 2013, whereby the Petitioners’ AGP was retrospectively
refixed at AGP 6000, are quashed.
46. The Petitioners shall be treated as having continued in the AGP at
which they were originally appointed, namely AGP 7000 or AGP 8000, as
reflected in their respective offer letters, office orders and confirmation
records.
47. DU shall restore the Petitioners’ pay, seniority and all consequential
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 25 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05
service benefits on that basis. Their eligibility and progression under the
Career Advancement Scheme, including any subsequent promotions already
granted or falling due, shall be recomputed by disregarding the impugned
refixation orders.
th
48. W.P.(C) 792/2018 is also allowed. The orders dated 28 December,
2017 and all consequential recovery actions are quashed.
49. Any amount recovered from the respective Petitioners pursuant to the
impugned refixation or recovery action shall be refunded within twelve
weeks from today, together with simple interest at 6% per annum from the
date of recovery until the date of refund. If the refund is not made within the
said period, the amount shall carry simple interest at 9% per annum
thereafter until payment.
50. DU shall also calculate and release arrears of salary and consequential
monetary benefits payable to the Petitioners on account of restoration of
AGP 7000/8000, including consequential revision of pay on promotions, if
any. The exercise shall be completed within twelve weeks from today. The
arrears shall carry simple interest at 6% per annum from the date they
became due until payment.
51. The writ petitions are allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 12, 2026/ hc
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2780/2013 & W.P.(C) 792/2018 Page 26 of 26
Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
17:59:05