Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Prof. Sabiha Hussain - Appellant
Versus
Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 8532/2019, CM Nos. 35239/2019, 44194/2019, 52378/2019, 5316/2020, 5317/2020, 27998/2020 and Cont. CAS(C) 602/2020, W.P.(C) 7864/2020, CM No. 25800/2020, W.P.(C) 7928/2020, CM No. 25930/2020, W.P.(C) 8454/2020, CM No. 27309/2020 & W.P.(C) 10702/2020
Decided On : 18-08-2021
The petitioners, working as teaching staff in a Centre established under a UGC Scheme, challenged the University's decision to issue an advertisement inviting applications for the posts in the Centre, alleging that their services should be regularized without resorting to a fresh selection process. The Court held that regular appointments have to be made in accordance with the rules and by giving wide publicity, considering all eligible candidates. The petitioners' initial appointment was for a limited period and not permanent, and not all eligible persons would have applied for the same. The Court directed the University to issue a corrigendum/public notice stating that the petitioners would be given certain advantages in the selection process, such as age relaxation and additional marks for each completed year of engagement in the Centre, up to a ceiling limit. The petitioners were allowed to continue working in the Centre till the selection process was complete, and their further continuance would be regulated by the final selection. The Court also directed the University to pass an order on the continuance of the petitioner as Director, taking into consideration the findings of the Inquiry Committee and the position under the statutes, and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were working as teaching staff in a Centre established under a UGC Scheme. The University issued an advertisement inviting applications for the posts in the Centre, and the petitioners challenged this decision, alleging that their services should be regularized without resorting to a fresh selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that regular appointments have to be made in accordance with the rules and by giving wide publicity, considering all eligible candidates. The petitioners' initial appointment was for a limited period and not permanent, and not all eligible persons would have applied for the same.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' services should be regularized without resorting to a fresh selection process. 2. Whether the University's decision to issue an advertisement inviting applications for the posts in the Centre was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that regular appointments have to be made in accordance with the rules and by giving wide publicity, considering all eligible candidates. The petitioners' initial appointment was for a limited period and not permanent, and not all eligible persons would have applied for the same. The Court directed the University to issue a corrigendum/public notice stating that the petitioners would be given certain advantages in the selection process, such as age relaxation and additional marks for each completed year of engagement in the Centre, up to a ceiling limit. The petitioners were allowed to continue working in the Centre till the selection process was complete, and their further continuance would be regulated by the final selection. The Court also directed the University to pass an order on the continuance of the petitioner as Director, taking into consideration the findings of the Inquiry Committee and the position under the statutes, and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Court directed the University to issue a corrigendum/public notice stating that the petitioners would be given certain advantages in the selection process, such as age relaxation and additional marks for each completed year of engagement in the Centre, up to a ceiling limit. The petitioners were allowed to continue working in the Centre till the selection process was complete, and their further continuance would be regulated by the final selection. The Court also directed the University to pass an order on the continuance of the petitioner as Director, taking into consideration the findings of the Inquiry Committee and the position under the statutes, and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. - At the outset I may state, vide this common order I shall decide, CONT. CAS(C) 602/2020, W.P.(C) 8532/2019, W.P.(C) 8454/2020, W.P.(C) 7864/2020, W.P.(C) 7928/2020, W.P.(C) 10702/2020 and respective applications connected therewith, as the issue raised in these petitions is similar and with identical facts, but narrated separately.
W.P.(C) 8532/2019
2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“In light of the submissions made hereinabove the Petitioner humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-
a. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent to regularise the Services of the Petitioner at the post of Professor/ Director and grant all consequential benefits in favour of the Petitioner;
b. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash / set aside the letter/order dated 01.07.2019 appointing Respondent No. 3 as Professor in Charge in place of Petitioner;
c. Pass any other and such further order(s) in favor of the Petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to pass in the interest of justice.”
3. As per the petitioner the respondent University is a Central University which is fully funded by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, and is governed by its own Act, Statute and Ordinances. On February 16, 2000, the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’, for short and respondent No. 5 herein) approved the establishment of the Sarojini Naidu Women’s Studies Centre (‘Centre’, for short) under the IX Plan with the respondent University. The petitioner who was earlier working as a Professor at Dr. K.R. Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies had, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the University on July 12, 2016, applied for the post of Director in the Centre. The petitioner was duly selected for the post and the selection was approved by the Executive Council (‘EC’, for short) of the respondent University vide the minutes dated March 10, 2017. Subsequently, she joined the tenure post of Professor/Director of the Centre for the period of the UGC’s XII Plan or till the Scheme lasts.
4. The respondent University in its letters dated April 27, 2017 and July 31, 2018 requested the respondent No. 5/UGC to merge all teaching positions of the Centre under the XII Plan into Non-Plan (maintenance grant) of the respondent University. In response to the respondent University’s letters, the respondent No. 5/ UGC vide its letter dated April 18, 2019 granted approval for merger of teaching posts under the Plan into Regular Establishment Budget of the respondent University. The respondent no.5/ UGC vide its letter dated June 25, 2019 also clarified that the services of the persons appointed through proper selection procedure/committee and who are fulfilling all educational and other qualification as prescribed in the Regulations at the time, and whose appointments were approved by the statutory bodies, “may” be merged under Regular Establishment Budget of the respondent University. Pursuant thereto the Jamia Teachers Association (‘JTA’, for short) vide its letter dated June 07, 2019 sought clarification from the UGC as to whether the merger of the posts would mean that the services of the incumbents are confirmed or their services be terminated and the posts be advertised afresh. It is the case of the petitioner that as no response was received and pursuant to the letter of the UGC granting approval, she requested the respondent University vide letter dated June 26, 2019 for confirmation of her services. The Respondent University instead of regularising the services of the petitioner as Director initiated a Disciplinary Inquiry against the petitioner and in that regard a show cause notice dated June 28, 2019 was issued and after two days, i.e., on July 01, 2019 appointed respondent no. 3 as the Professor-in-Charge of the Centre, which is in effect the position of Directo
Regular appointments have to be made in accordance with the rules and by giving wide publicity, considering all eligible candidates.
Public employment must comply with constitutional provisions, ensuring equal opportunity through open competition; mere temporary appointments do not automatically confer rights to regularization.
Employees appointed on a tenure basis are not entitled to be regularized in their positions unless there is a specific provision in their contract of employment or in the relevant rules and regulatio....
Since there are no sanctioned posts on which any of these petitioners were appointed as irregular appointments, no such directions are warranted.
Removal from service – A person appointed after undergoing a regular selection process and possessing relevant qualifications, cannot be abruptly removed from service.
Absorption in service – As per UGC Regulations compensation to be paid for emoluments equal to the gross salary of regularly appointed Assistant Professors for the services rendered by them for a per....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of treating similarly situated persons alike and the obligation of the employer to extend benefits to all eligible employees.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioners' service should have been regularized as they were engaged against sanctioned posts by following due process of selection and ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
