Aligarh/Allahabad: A cloud of uncertainty now hangs over the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor at the Centre for Food Science and Technology (CFST), Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), after the Allahabad High Court permitted the university to go ahead with the scheduled interview, but only on the condition that the entire exercise remains subject to the final outcome of a writ petition challenging the eligibility criteria for the post.
The order was passed on September 1, 2026 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Siddharth Nandan in Dr. Abdul Haque v. Union of India and 7 Others (Writ-A No. 9581 of 2026), even as the University pressed to proceed with the interview scheduled for the same day, citing “exigency” arising from two temporary vacancies.
The Order
Recording submissions of counsel, the Court noted that while the petitioner’s side informed it that the University was proceeding with the interview that very day, counsel for AMU, Advocate Shashank Shekhar Singh, submitted that although two vacancies were temporary in nature, the University sought permission to carry out the selection process on account of administrative exigency. The Bench permitted the process to continue, but expressly clarified that it would remain conditional upon the result of the writ petition. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on September 10, 2026, in the top-ten cases of the day.
The order follows an earlier direction dated July 15, 2026, in which the Court had asked the petitioner to serve notice on counsel for the remaining respondents, including the Union Grants Commission, AICTE and ICAR, and listed the matter for July 28, 2026.
The Underlying Dispute
The writ petition, filed by Dr. Abdul Haque; himself a PhD, M.Tech. and NET-qualified academic of AMU, challenges the Minutes of the Board of Studies (BOS) of CFST dated May 20, 2025, to the extent that “Mechanical Engineering” was excluded from the list of relevant subjects at the graduate (B.E./B.Tech./B.S.) level for eligibility to the post of Assistant Professor in Food Technology/Food Engineering. Two subsequent advertisements issued by the department, Local Advertisement Nos. 01/FE/CFST/2025 and 02/CFST/2025, carried forward this exclusion.
Kaif Hasan, counsel for the petitioner told that during the pendency of the writ petition, AMU proceeded with the sanctioning of the posts. Hasan told that when the petitioner filed a stay application, the respondent university issued advertisement for the posts of Assistant Professor calling application forms. Further it was told by Hasan that when due to paucity of time matter could not be taken up, taking advantage of the same the respondent university issued date of interview. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Special Appeal before Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court wherein while dismissing the appeal, owing to urgency the Division Bench directed for due listing of the matter. Hasan says that consequently respondent university postponed the schedule for interview to 01.09.2026; on the same day when the writ petition was directed to be listed wherein the order has been passed.
The petitioner contends that this is both arbitrary and internally inconsistent with the University’s own practice, pointing out that AMU’s Guide to Admissions 2026–27 itself recognises a Mechanical Engineering degree as a qualifying credential for admission to the M.Tech. programme in Processing and Food Engineering. He further contends that the sister department of Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, which advertises an identical post, had itself initially excluded Mechanical Engineering before amending its own eligibility criteria to include it, in what the petition describes as an unexplained inconsistency within the same university that offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The petition also invokes the principle of estoppel, arguing that AMU cannot, on one hand, admit a candidate to a PhD programme on the strength of a Mechanical Engineering degree, and on the other, deny the same qualification recognition at the recruitment stage; relying on a recent order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Seema Sharma v. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, which held against precisely such an inconsistent standard.
Interviewees Caught in the Crossfire
With the Court’s order leaving the interview process intact but its outcome expressly contingent on the writ petition, the dilemma now extends well beyond the petitioner himself. Candidates who appeared for interview on September 1, and any candidates who may eventually be selected against the two temporary vacancies, face the prospect of their appointment remaining in limbo pending the Court’s final decision. Should the Court eventually rule in the petitioner’s favour and direct inclusion of Mechanical Engineering as an eligible qualification, or order a fresh Board of Studies deliberation, the selection process concluded in the interim could face fresh scrutiny, leaving both the University and the successful candidates exposed to uncertainty over the validity of appointments made “subject to outcome.”
The petitioner was represented before the Court by Advocate Kaif Hasan, who appeared and argued the matter along with the petitioner’s Advocate-on-Record, Ali Bin Saif. Advocate Hasan pressed the petitioner’s apprehension that the interview proceeding on the day of hearing itself would prejudice the outcome of the writ petition if allowed to conclude unconditionally, prompting the Court to record the University’s process as expressly conditional on the final result of the case. The State was represented by the Additional Solicitor General of India’s office and Advocate Shashank Shekhar Singh on behalf of respondents 2 to 5.
The matter will next be heard on September 10, 2026.
(This report is based on court orders dated July 15, 2026 and September 1, 2026, and the writ petition filed in Writ-A No. 9581 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court.)