Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
Faizanur Rahman – Appellant
Versus
Jamia Millia Islamia – Respondent
W.P.(C) 12423/2024 | CM APPL. 51672/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhik Chimni, Gurupal Singh, Pranjal Abral, Aryan Dasgupta, Moksha Sharma, Maaroof
For the Respondents: Pritish Sabharwal, Shweta S., Abhishek
Termination of a probationer on grounds of alleged misrepresentation or misconduct that casts a stigma requires compliance with natural justice; a prior show-cause notice and an opportunity to be heard are mandatory to satisfy procedural fairness.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the respondent's order cancelling their appointment as a Professor, citing false declaration regarding teaching experience. The court examined Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning administrative fairness and the necessity of due process when an order carries a stigma, even for a probationer. The High Court determined that the cancellation based on alleged misrepresentation without providing a show cause notice or an opportunity to respond violated the principles of natural justice. The court addressed the issue of whether a stigmatic termination of a probationer requires a fair hearing. The ratio decidendi holds that where a termination order attributes concealment or moral blame, it assumes a punitive character, mandating an opportunity for the employee to explain. Referring to landmark precedents, the court emphasized that procedural fairness is compulsory when an order is founded on allegations of misconduct. The court set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the university for fresh consideration, and directed the university to issue a notice, provide the relevant material to the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order after granting a hearing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding appointment, teaching experience dispute, and the university's cancellation order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. violation of natural justice principles when a termination carries a stigma based on alleged misconduct. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. procedural directions for remand, fresh consideration, and maintenance of probation status pending final decision. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
O R D E R
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2024 passed by the Respondent University, whereby the Petitioner’s appointment as Professor in the Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia,1“JMI” was cancelled on the allegation of a false declaration in his application, and further seeks a direction to the Respondent University to reinstate the Petitioner to the said post.
2. The Petitioner was serving the University as an Assistant Professor. In response to an advertisement for the post of Professor in the Faculty of Law, he applied and was recommended by the Selection Committee on 13th September, 2023. The Vice-Chancellor issued the letter for the said post on 27th September, 2023, under the authorisation of the Executive Council and on the recommendation of the General Selection Committee. This appointment was on probation for one year from the date of joining.
3. Subsequently, the Executive Council in its meeting held on 31st July, 2024, did not confirm the recommendation of the Selection Committee, and pursuant thereto, the impugned office order was issued by the competent authority allegedly on the ground that the Petitioner had misrepresented his teaching experience.
4. Mr. Abhik Chimni, counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the University took this decision without observing basic procedural fairness. No show cause notice preceded the cancellation. The material relied upon was not furnished. The Petitioner was not given a chance to explain his experience record or clarify any discrepancy.
5. The University disputes the above claim, stating that it received a complaint dated 22nd July, 2024, alleging that the Petitioner had misrepresented his teaching experience to meet the ten-year eligibility requirement as of the closing date of the advertisement. On verification, the University claims to have found that the Petitioner had 9 years, 11 months and 4 days of teaching experience, as against 10 years and 28 days stated in his application.
6. The Petitioner, however, relies on a certificate dated 6th September, 2024 issued by the Registrar, Aligarh Muslim University, which establishes that he satisfies the ten-year requirement. The Petitioner’s case is that the certificate was issued pursuant to a verification sought by the University, but the University did not wait for a reply or consider it before cancelling the appointment.
7. Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for the Respondent University, submits that the certificate was received after the decision had already been taken and, in any event, the University proceeded on the basis of the disclosures made by the Petitioner in his application.
8. Two features of the dispute stand out. First, there is a genuine factual contest on the Petitioner’s teaching experience and the computation of the qualifying period. Second, the cancellation order does not read as a routine decision on suitability during probation. It rests on an allegation of concealment and false declaration, which carries a clear stigma.
9. Although the Petitioner was on probation at the relevant time, the impugned order cannot be characterised as an innocuous termination simpliciter. The order proceeds on the premise that the Petitioner had concealed material information and made a false declaration regarding his teaching experience. Such an attribution goes beyond a mere assessment of suitability and imputes misconduct, thereby casting a stigma. The Supreme Court has consistently held that w
