Case title: Meher Fatima Hussain v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.
Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 4963 Of 2024
Dated on: 15th April 2024
Quorum: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case revolves around three appellants, Meher Fatima Hussain, Sabiha Hussain, and Suraiya Tabassum, who were appointed to various teaching positions at Jamia Milia Islamia University. They were initially appointed on probation, later converted to temporary posts, and finally, appointed in December 2016 to tenure posts in the Sarojini Naidu Centre. The appointments were made following a regular selection process initiated based on an advertisement dated 12th July 2016. The University sought approval from the University Grants Commission (UGC) to merge the posts into its regular establishment, which was approved. However, the University decided to start a fresh selection process, leading to the appellants’ challenge.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Appellants counsel argued that the appointments were made through a proper selection process, and they possessed the necessary qualifications. They cited previous decisions and emphasized that the appellants were appointed after following due process.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed heavy reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Somesh Thapliyal and Anr. v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University and Anr. In our considered view, once the appellants have gone through the process of selection provided under the scheme of the 1973 Act regardless of the fact whether the post is temporary or permanent in nature, at least their appointment is substantive in character and could be made permanent as and when the post is permanently sanctioned by the competent authority.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The University argued that the appointments were not permanent and were made on tenure posts. It claimed that the appellants’ cases represented a “backdoor entry” and cannot be regularized in service. The University also alleged misconduct against the appellants.
The UGC reiterated its stance that appointments made through proper selection procedures and meeting the prescribed qualifications could be continued after merger with the regular establishment.
ISSUE –
- Whether the appellants appointments were made following due process.
- Whether the decision to start a fresh selection process after UGC’s approval for merger was justified.
- Whether the appellants’ appointments should be continued after merger.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Court examined the sequence of events, including the appointments, approvals from UGC, and the University’s decision to initiate a fresh selection process. It noted that the appellants were appointed following a regular selection process and possessed the required qualifications. The Court emphasized the UGC’s approval for merging the posts and directed the reinstatement of the appellants to their respective posts within three months. The Court also mentioned the possibility of disciplinary proceedings against the appellants but affirmed their right to challenge such actions.
The judgment in Meher Fatima Hussain v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors. highlights the importance of following due process in appointments and upholding the rights of employees, especially in cases involving mergers and reappointments. The Court’s decision reaffirms the principle of fairness and transparency in administrative actions within educational institutions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A
