IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Prof Sabiha Hussain – Appellant
Versus
Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors. – Respondents
LPA 310 of 2021 & CM APPL. 29999 of 2021, 39150 of 2022, 45329 of 2022, 45458 of 2022, 45459 of 2022, 49744 of 2022, 55147 of 2022 & 8704 of 2023, LPA 313 of 2021 and LPA 316 of 2021
Decided On : 11-04-2023
The Court held that the Petitioners were not entitled to regularization or absorption. The advertisement dated September 18, 2020, was valid and justified. The petitions were disposed of in terms of the Court's conclusion.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners were appointed to various teaching posts in the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women's Studies (SNCWS) at Jamia Millia Islamia University. The SNCWS was established under a UGC scheme and the Petitioners were appointed on a tenure basis till the XIIth Plan or till the scheme lasted. The UGC later approved the merger of the SNCWS into the regular establishment of the University. The Petitioners claimed that they were entitled to be regularized in their positions. The University, however, issued an advertisement inviting applications for the same posts on an all-India basis.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Petitioners were appointed on a tenure basis and that their appointments were not permanent. The Court also found that the UGC's approval for the merger of the SNCWS into the regular establishment of the University did not automatically entitle the Petitioners to be regularized. The Court further found that the University was justified in issuing an advertisement inviting applications for the posts on an all-India basis.
Issues: 1. Whether the Petitioners were entitled to be regularized in their positions. 2. Whether the University was justified in issuing an advertisement inviting applications for the posts on an all-India basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Petitioners were not entitled to be regularized in their positions because they were appointed on a tenure basis and their appointments were not permanent. The Court also held that the UGC's approval for the merger of the SNCWS into the regular establishment of the University did not automatically entitle the Petitioners to be regularized. The Court further held that the University was justified in issuing an advertisement inviting applications for the posts on an all-India basis because it was necessary to ensure that the posts were filled by the most qualified candidates.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Petitioners' writ petitions.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid LPA's, they were heard analogously and a common judgment is being passed. The learned Single Judge while delivering a common judgment in all connected Writ Petitions has dealt with the facts of W.P.(C.) No. 8532/2019, Prof Sabiha Hussain v. Jamia Milia Islamia and Ors. and therefore, the facts of the case of Professor Sabiha Hussain are being dealt by this Court while passing a common order in all the connected LPA's. The facts of LPA 310/2021 are being dealt as under:
2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant Writ Petitioner came up before this Court stating that she was initially appointed as a reader on probation on ad hoc basis by Respondent Jamia Milia Islamia for the study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy in K.R. Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies. The post was advertised vide advertisement dated 01.05.2008 and the appointment of the Appellant was made through a proper selection committee. The Petitioner was later on redesignated from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Professor under the UGC Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) 2014 w.e.f. 06.08.2014. The Petitioner was thereafter posted as Professor Director vide order dated 22.03.2016.
3. The Petitioner has further stated that an advertisement was issued on 12.07.2016 inviting applications for the post of Professor/Director as well as other posts in the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women's Studies. The post of the Professor/Director was a tenure post i.e. till the XIIth Plan of the UGC. The Petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement submitted an application on 09.08.2016 and an appointment letter was issued on 08.12.2016. The Appellant in the writ petition has further stated that appointment of the petitioner was approved in the meeting of the Executive Council on 10.03.2017.
4. The facts of the case further reveal that vide letter dated 27.04.2017, the University requested the UGC to merge the expenditure to be incurred on the salary of the faculty positions under the Development of Studies in Indian Universities and Colleges - Continuation of Women Studies Centres in XIIth Plan into the Non-Plan (maintenance grant) of Jamia Milia Islamia.
5. Another request was made by the University on 31.07.2018 requesting the UGC to merge the posts of faculty in the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women's Studies into the Non-Plan posts sanctioned by UGC.
6. The Petitioner in the writ petition further contended that vide letter dated 31.01.2019, the Petitioner informed the Respondent University that 3 years term of both internal and external members of Committee of Studies is going to expire in the month of February, 2019 and requested to approve two names each as internal as well as external members and in response to the aforesaid letter the University on 13.02.2019 informed about the approval/renewal of both internal and external members of Committee of Studies. The Petitioner has further stated that the UGC vide its notice dated 26.03.2019 informed the public at large that the UGC Schemes will continue upto 31.03.2020.
7. The Petitioner in the writ petition has further stated that the UGC vide its letter dated 18.04.2019 granted approval to the merger of all the teaching positions of the Centre for Women's Studies (WSC) into the Regular Establishment Budget of the University and the Controller of Examinations vide letter dated 01.05.2019 informed that the Vice Chancellor has approved the Petitioner's absorption in the Centre for the School Admission Test 2019-2020.
8. The Petitioner along with other faculty members working in the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women's Studies submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent University and requested to regularize and confirm the services of the Faculty Members appointed through Regular Selection Committees in Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women's Studies keeping in view the UG
AI
Regular appointments have to be made in accordance with the rules and by giving wide publicity, considering all eligible candidates.
Removal from service – A person appointed after undergoing a regular selection process and possessing relevant qualifications, cannot be abruptly removed from service.
Since there are no sanctioned posts on which any of these petitioners were appointed as irregular appointments, no such directions are warranted.
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 ....
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.
Employers must clearly specify the nature of appointments in job advertisements; failure to do so leads to regularization of initially contractual positions when recruitment processes are followed.
Point of law; It is clearly clarified in this judgment also in line with the earlier judgments also that unless and until the original appointment is a “regular recruitment” in accordance with “the r....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.