Pre-existing suitability benchmarks omitted from recruitment advertisements do not constitute an impermissible change to selection rules.

The appellant, a candidate with a benchmark locomotor disability (PwBD), applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Information Technology and Computer Science Engineering under two recruitment advertisements (Advertisement No. 1 dated 10.09.2021 and Advertisement No. 2 dated 27.02.2023)

Prior to these advertisements, the University's Board of Management had approved a "Recruitment Document" on 20.07.2021, which mandated a minimum suitability threshold of 50% marks for selection

Although the appellant participated in the screening, presentation, and interview, he scored 37.2% under the first advertisement and 38%/37% under the second

Consequently, the Selection Committee found him unsuitable as he failed to meet the 50% benchmark

The appellant challenged his non-selection, arguing that the 50% threshold was not disclosed in the advertisements and constituted a "change in the rules of the game" after the process had commenced.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, leading to these intra-court appeals

1. Whether applying a 50% suitability benchmark, which was not explicitly mentioned in the recruitment advertisement but existed in internal guidelines prior to the advertisement, constitutes an impermissible "change in the rules of the game"

2. Whether the non-selection of a PwBD candidate for failing to meet a suitability threshold violates the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act)

The court primarily applied the principle established by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan (2025), which mandates that the norms or rules of a recruitment process, including suitability criteria, cannot be altered once the process has commenced

The court also considered the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, regarding the statutory obligation to provide reservation and ensure non-discrimination for PwBD candidates

Furthermore, it upheld the University’s internal "Recruitment Document" approved by the Board of Management under the relevant Delhi Act No. 9 of 2012 as the governing regulatory framework for selection

The Court determined that there was no "change in the rules of the game" because the 50% suitability threshold was approved by the Board of Management on 20.07.2021, which predated both Advertisement No. 1 (10.09.2021) and Advertisement No. 2 (27.02.2023)

Thus, the norm was already in existence at the time of recruitment, distinguishing this case from the facts in Tej Prakash Pathak

The Court further reasoned that the absence of minor procedural details, such as the specific suitability score, in a general recruitment advertisement does not vitiate the selection process so long as the pre-existing guidelines are followed

Regarding the RPwD Act, the Court observed that the University had fulfilled its statutory duty by reserving posts and allowing the appellant to participate; however, the Act does not mandate the appointment of a PwBD candidate who fails to meet the objectively prescribed suitability benchmark

The Court answered the issues by stating that no prejudice or discrimination occurred under the RPwD Act as the appellant was allowed to compete but failed to secure the minimum marks

The condonation of delay was granted, but the underlying challenge to the selection process was rejected

No order as to costs was made