Rambir v. Rajesh Kumar, Under Secretary To The Govt Of India, Ministry Of Education, Department Of Higher Edu

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 23.04.2026 + RAMBIR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Suyash Srivastava, Mr. Manish Pandey, Advs.

versus RAJESH KUMAR, UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION,DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Vasanth Rajasekaran (SSC) along with Mr.

Karan Prakash, Mr.

Harshvardhan Korada, Mr. Om Bali, Ms. Deepshikha Kumar, Advs.

Dr. Monika Arora (CGSC) along with Mr. Rajat Mohan Dwivedi, Mr.

Mayank Madhu, Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Advs. for R1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) 1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience/non-compliance with the directions contained in the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed in W.P.(C) 9521/2019. The operative directions therein are as under:

"23. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to Respondent No.2 to convene a DPC within a period of six weeks from today to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Librarian, subject to his conduct reports meeting the requisite criteria. Needless to state that if the Petitioner

is recommended for promotion, he will be promoted with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law. It is for the University to take a decision with regard to the candidate appointed through direct recruitment and if necessary create a supernumerary post and continue him."

2.

It is informed that a DPC was convened pursuant to the aforesaid directions and the recommendation has been made for promotion of the petitioner. The said recommendation has been forwarded to the UGC. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment dated 29.11.2024 itself records that UGC has not notified any service conditions for non-teaching staff of the Central Universities and the Central Universities frame their own recruitment rules. As such, there is no requirement for obtaining any approval of the UGC. 4.

It appears that the necessary promotion has not been effectuated since the respondents have sought to file an LPA against the aforesaid order dated 29.11.2024. Admittedly, however, neither has any interim order been passed in the said LPA and nor has the said LPA even been listed for hearing before the concerned Court.

5.

In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to comply with the directions contained in the judgment dated 29.11.2024 as expeditiously as possible and effectuate the decision required to be taken pursuant to the DPC as already been held.

6.

If any approval is required from the UGC, let the same be taken expeditiously so as to ensure that there is no impediment in the way of implementation of the directions contained in the judgment dated 29.11.2024.

7.

Let the necessary promotion be effectuated in terms thereof expeditiously and in any event, latest within a period of 4 weeks from today. 8.

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 9.

Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to revive the present petition in case of non-adherence with the aforesaid directions. It is further made clear that non-adherence of the aforesaid directions shall be construed as an egregious breach on the part of the respondents with the orders passed by this Court, entailing action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. SACHIN DATTA, J APRIL 23, 2026/at/sl