Introduction:

The Delhi High Court, in Jamia Millia Islamia v Roshan Ara and Others, decided in LPA 476 of 2025, delivered an important judgment reinforcing the primacy of statutory Recruitment Rules over executive resolutions of universities. The Division Bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav dismissed the appeal filed by Jamia Millia Islamia challenging a Single Judge’s order which had directed the University to consider eligible Assistant Librarians for promotion to the post of Deputy Librarian. The dispute arose when the University, relying on a resolution passed by its Executive Council, sought to fill the post of Deputy Librarian through 100 percent direct recruitment, thereby excluding promotion as a mode of appointment. The respondents, who were serving Assistant Librarians, contended that such exclusion was contrary to the existing Recruitment Rules framed in accordance with the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010, which continued to provide for promotion as a valid channel. The case thus raised a critical question on whether an executive decision of a university can override or bypass duly notified Recruitment Rules without following the formal process of amendment. The High Court’s ruling is significant not only for university employees but also for reinforcing constitutional principles of administrative fairness, certainty in service law, and adherence to statutory norms in public employment.

Arguments:

On behalf of the appellant University, it was contended that the Executive Council, being the highest decision making authority of the institution, had the power to determine the mode of recruitment for posts under its control. The University argued that pursuant to a conscious policy decision taken by the Executive Council, the post of Deputy Librarian was required to be filled exclusively through direct recruitment in order to attract fresh talent and ensure higher academic and professional standards. It was submitted that Clause 4.5 of the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010 did not mandate promotion as a compulsory mode of appointment and therefore the University was well within its अधिकार to adopt direct recruitment as the sole method. The University further argued that courts should not interfere with academic and administrative autonomy of universities, particularly in matters relating to staffing and recruitment, unless the decision is shown to be patently arbitrary or mala fide. According to the appellant, the Single Judge erred in compelling the University to follow an outdated recruitment structure despite a clear policy shift approved by the Executive Council.

On the other hand, the respondents Assistant Librarians strongly opposed the appeal and argued that the University was bound by its existing Recruitment Rules, which had statutory force as they were framed in conformity with the UGC Regulations 2010. It was submitted that as per the prevailing rules, the post in question was to be filled by 50 percent direct recruitment and 50 percent by promotion, and unless these rules were formally amended following due process, the University could not unilaterally exclude promotion by passing an executive resolution. The respondents contended that an internal administrative decision cannot override binding statutory regulations, and doing so would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by arbitrarily depriving eligible employees of promotional opportunities. It was further argued that Clause 4.5 of the UGC Regulations did not abolish promotional avenues and that the University’s interpretation was selective and self serving. The respondents emphasised that service jurisprudence requires certainty and predictability, and employees cannot be subjected to changing rules of the game midstream based on executive convenience.

Judgment:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge, holding that Jamia Millia Islamia was bound to follow the existing Recruitment Rules until they were duly amended in accordance with law. The Division Bench categorically held that an executive decision or resolution of a university authority cannot override statutory Recruitment Rules or UGC Regulations that govern appointments and promotions. The Court noted that it was an undisputed position that under the existing Recruitment Rules, the post of Assistant Librarian was to be filled 50 percent by direct recruitment and 50 percent by promotion, and that these rules continued to hold the field. The Bench examined Clause 4.5 of the UGC Regulations 2010 and found that there was nothing in the said provision which mandated that appointments to the post could only be made through direct recruitment or that promotion was prohibited. The Court rejected the University’s attempt to rely on an Executive Council resolution to alter the mode of recruitment, observing that unless Recruitment Rules are formally amended following the prescribed procedure, they remain binding and enforceable. The Bench emphasised that permitting executive decisions to override Recruitment Rules would lead to administrative arbitrariness and undermine the rule of law in public employment. It further observed that universities, though autonomous in academic matters, are still statutory bodies bound by regulations framed under law, especially when it comes to service conditions of employees. The Court thus held that Jamia Millia Islamia was legally obligated to consider eligible Assistant Librarians for promotion to the post of Deputy Librarian and that the exclusion of promotion without amending the rules was impermissible. On this reasoning, the appeals were dismissed and the directions issued by the Single Judge were affirmed.