IMPORTANT POINT
Removal from service – A person appointed after undergoing a regular selection process and possessing relevant qualifications, cannot be abruptly removed from service.

JUDGMENT

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 11th April 2023, Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the appellants herein were dismissed.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

CASE OF SABIHA HUSSAIN

3. A few factual details must be stated to appreciate the controversy. The appellant (Sabiha Hussain), in a Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8416 of 2023, was initially appointed as a Reader on probation on an ad-hoc basis by Jamia Milia Islamia, a University constituted under an Act of Parliament (for short, ‘the University’). The 1st and 2nd respondents represent the University. On 6th August 2008, she was appointed to a sanctioned post of Reader in the programme for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy in Dr. K.R. Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minority Studies. The appointment was made pursuant to the advertisement dated 1st May 2008. According to the appellant's case, her appointment was made through a properly constituted Selection Committee. The said appellant was later appointed as an Associate Professor. She was appointed a professor under the Career Advancement Schemes of 2010 of the University Grants Commission (for short, ‘UGC’), effective 6th August 2014. The 1st respondent vide order dated 23rd February 2016 gave her additional charge of the post of Director in Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women Studies (for short, ‘Sarojini Naidu Centre’).

4. The University published an advertisement on 12th July 2016, inviting applications to the post of Professor/Director and other academic posts in the Sarojini Naidu Centre established by the 1st respondent. Some of the posts advertised were tenure posts till the XII plan of the UGC. Some of the posts were non-plan posts. She applied pursuant to the advertisement. By a letter of appointment dated 8th December 2016, she was appointed as the Professor/Director. The Executive Council of the 1st respondent confirmed her appointment in a meeting held on 10th March 2017.

5. The University addressed a letter to the UGC stating that the sanctioned posts at the Sarojini Naidu Centre were advertised and have been duly filled in by following the regular selection process. A prayer was made in the said letter by the University to the UGC to merge Sarojini Naidu Centre into the regular establishment of the University. One more representation was made by the Registrar of the University to UGC, making a similar request. The UGC responded to the letters mentioned above by informing the University that if the appointments of the teachers have been made by way of a regular selection process, the same can be regularised. In a letter dated 07th June 2019, even the Teacher’s Association of the University sought clarification from UGC. The clarification was whether the incumbents' services, including the appellants herein, would be confirmed or terminated. In a letter dated 25th June 2019, the UGC clarified that the teachers appointed through the proper selection procedure and who are duly qualified shall stand merged under the regular establishment budget of the University.

6. By a letter dated 26th June 2019, the appellant sought confirmation of service by addressing a letter to the University. After that, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to her for misconduct. On 1st July 2019 the appellant was replaced by another professor as the Director of Sarojini Naidu Centre. The appellant replied to the show cause notice. The appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging her abrupt removal from the post of Director and the decision not to regularise her appointment. On 21st August 2019, the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the reinstatement of the appellant to the post of Professor/Director of Sarojini Naidu Centre. This was done by way of an interim order. On 1st April 2020, the University stopped the functioning of the Sarojini Naidu Centre. After that, the first respondent advertised the post held by the appellant. In the Writ Petition, the U