"None Found Suitable" findings are arbitrary absent predefined benchmarks in advertisements or selection proceedings.

Delhi Technological University (DTU) issued an advertisement on 28.09.2017 for Assistant Professor posts, including two posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste (SC) category in Management

The selection process involved a screening test, a presentation, and an interview

The Appellant, an SC candidate, qualified for the screening test and appeared for the interview.

The Selection Committee appointed one candidate but declared "None Found Suitable" (NFS) for the second SC post

The Appellant challenged this through various representations and eventually filed W.P.(C) 8606/2019 after his representation was rejected on 06.05.2019

During the pendency of the writ, DTU issued a fresh advertisement on 14.03.2024.

The Appellant participated in this 2024 process but failed to secure the minimum benchmark of 50 marks, obtaining only 47.8

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 20.02.2026, leading to this intra-court appeal

1. Whether the Selection Committee’s declaration of "None Found Suitable" (NFS) in the 2017 recruitment process was arbitrary in the absence of a pre-defined benchmark in the advertisement or committee proceedings

2. Whether the Appellant’s failure in a subsequent recruitment process (2024) justifies the denial of relief regarding the 2017 recruitment process

The Court applied the principles of administrative law regarding non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It held that for a selection process to be valid and non-arbitrary, any benchmark or criteria for adjudging "suitability" must either be stipulated in the advertisement or fixed by the Selection Committee during the proceedings

Furthermore, the court considered the doctrine of subsequent developments, wherein the passage of time and intervening recruitment cycles may render certain reliefs inequitable or unfeasible

The Court agreed with the Appellant that the 2017 NFS declaration was logically flawed and arbitrary

It reasoned that without a predefined benchmark, the Selection Committee cannot arbitrarily declare a candidate "unsuitable" while evaluating inter se merit

However, the Court noted that significant time had passed since 2017 and multiple recruitment cycles had occurred

The University rectified its previous error in the 2024 recruitment by fixing a specific benchmark (50 marks for SC candidates).

The Appellant participated in this corrected process but failed to meet the objective standard, scoring 47.8

The Court determined that since the Appellant could not meet the now-established suitability criteria in a subsequent open competition for the same post, he was not entitled to a mandatory appointment order for the 2017 vacancy

The Court also upheld the admission of the 2024 selection minutes as evidence, noting that an intra-court appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings

The Court declined to interfere with the Single Judge's order and dismissed all pending applications with no order as to costs