In its recent judgment dated 15.04.2024 Supreme Court granted permission to appeals filed by three teachers and ordered the respondents to reinstate the appellants, within three months from today, in their respective posts based on their selection in December 2016.
The case was filed by Sabiha Hussain, Meher Fatima Hussain and Suraiya Tabassum, who were appointed to teaching positions. Initially they were appointed to the teaching position on probation, which was later converted to a temporary post and finally appointed in 2016. The University sought approval from UGC to regularize the appointments in Sarojini Naidu Centre. The appellant received a show-cause notice on June 28, 2019, and the university published an advertisement calling for applicants. As a result, she filed a Writ Petition, and the UGC published a public notice extending the UGC Women Studies Scheme till March 31, 2021, while the petition was pending. In August 2021, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal with the Division Bench which was dismissed. Therefore, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Counsel for the appellant argued before the court that the professors were appointed following a proper selection process, they also qualified the eligibility criteria and therefore their selection should be regularized.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the University argued that the that the appointments of the teachers were made on the temporary basis. The counsel contended that their case shows a “backdoor entry” and the professors are not eligible for regularization. The UGC reaffirmed that after merger with the regular establishment, the appointments made through proper selection procedures and meeting the prescribed qualifications could be continued.
The court observed that the appointment of each of the three appellants was made in accordance with the procedure that was started after the university published an advertisement on July 12, 2016. The teachers were selected by a regular selection committee, which recommended their appointments on 30th November 2016. The Executive Council of the University also approved their appointments. The court noted that the appellants possessed all the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the posts on which they were appointed in December 2016.
Therefore, rather than adopting a new selection process, the appellants should have continued on the positions merged with the regular establishment of the University, given that they were appointed following a regular selection process and that they possess relevant qualifications in accordance with UGC norms. Given the circumstances of this case, the University’s decision to discontinue them and begin a new selection procedure is unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, following the merger, the appellants’ employment will have to be continued.
After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal set aside the impugned judgments and allowing the appeal ordered respondents to reinstate the appellants in their respective posts based on their selection in December 2016 within three months. It also clarified that they will not be entitled to salary and allowances for the period for which they have not worked, though they shall be entitled to continuity in service and other consequential benefits.
CASE NAME: MEHER FATIMA HUSSAIN (APPELLANT) v. JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA & ORS. (RESPONDENT), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4963 OF 2024.
NAME: SHUBHI SRIVASTAVA, COURSE: B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), COLLEGE: JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
