Gupta, who holds a PhD in Agricultural Economics, appeared for an assistant professor interview at the Nauni university in 2009. The dispute centered on the selection process and her non-appointment. Gupta said she had a higher academic score than the candidate selected for the post, and the university’s evaluation records cited in reporting showed her score as 65.77, compared with 49.38 for the selected candidate.

The High Court’s October 8 order followed years of proceedings across legal forums. In its latest review, a five-member university committee concluded that Gupta had been wrongly denied consideration for the unreserved post and recommended her appointment against a vacancy. The court then directed the university to offer the appointment from 2010 with consequential service benefits. Gupta has described the long process as mentally distressing, while the legal dispute itself concerned recruitment and appointment.

Case at a glance

Timeline of the 17-year dispute

What the committee found

• Gupta had the higher score in the university’s evaluation records.
• The committee found she had been eligible during the recruitment process.
• It flagged that selection criteria were not clearly defined in advance or applied uniformly.
• It recommended a further independent inquiry into aspects of the recruitment process.

The university said it would review the High Court decision under its guidelines and government policies. Gupta’s case has renewed attention on transparent faculty recruitment, consistent selection criteria and the long-term effects that delayed decisions can have on academic careers. :chatgpt-content-reference{index="0"}