Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement of Professors in Jamia Milia Islamia: Meher Fatima Hussain vs. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors. (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 15 April 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 303

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a University deny continuation of service to teachers who were appointed through a proper selection process after their posts were merged into the regular establishment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving Jamia Milia Islamia University. The Court examined whether the University could initiate a fresh selection process for positions that were previously filled through a regular selection process, especially after the University Grants Commission (UGC) approved the merger of these posts into the regular establishment. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

This case involves three appellants: Meher Fatima Hussain, Sabiha Hussain, and Suraiya Tabassum, who were all appointed to teaching positions at Jamia Milia Islamia University. The dispute arose after the University decided to merge the posts held by these teachers with the regular establishment but then initiated a fresh selection process, effectively terminating their services.

Sabiha Hussain: Sabiha was initially appointed as a Reader on probation in 2008 and later became an Associate Professor. She was then appointed as a professor under the Career Advancement Scheme in 2014. In February 2016, she was given additional charge as the Director of the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women Studies. Following an advertisement in July 2016, she applied for and was appointed as Professor/Director of the same center in December 2016. However, in July 2019, she was removed from her post and a show cause notice for misconduct was issued to her.

Meher Fatima Hussain: Meher was appointed as a Lecturer on probation in August 2008. In April 2010, her post was converted to a temporary one. She received benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme of the UGC. In December 2016, she was appointed as an Associate Professor at the Sarojini Naidu Centre, following an advertisement in August 2016. She also received a show cause notice in June 2019.

Suraiya Tabassum: Suraiya was appointed as an Assistant Professor at the Sarojini Naidu Centre in December 2016, also following the July 2016 advertisement. Her situation is similar to that of Meher.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed Writ Petitions in the High Court challenging their removal and the decision not to regularize their appointments. The High Court initially granted an interim order reinstating Sabiha Hussain. However, the Single Judge later dismissed the Writ Petitions, stating that the appointments were temporary. The appellants then filed Letters Patent Appeals, which were also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court held that the appointments were on a tenure basis and not permanent.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Jamia Milia Act, 1988, and the regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC). The UGC is a statutory body responsible for maintaining standards in higher education. The UGC regulations define the qualifications and procedures for the appointment of teachers in universities. The University’s Statute 25, framed under the Jamia Milia Act, 1988, governs the selection process for faculty appointments. The UGC also issued guidelines regarding the merger of posts from various schemes into the regular establishment of universities.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that their appointments were made through a properly constituted Selection Committee as per the University Statute 25.
• They contended that the High Court erred in applying the principles of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, as their appointments were not irregular but were made through a due process.
• They relied on the UGC’s communication that if appointments were made through a regular selection process, they should be regularized, citing letters from the UGC dated 18th April 2019 and 25th June 2019.
• They argued that the UGC’s letter dated 25th June 2019, clarified that teachers appointed through a proper selection process, fulfilling all educational qualifications, and approved by statutory bodies, could be merged under the regular establishment budget of the University.
• The appellants cited State of Rajasthan & Ors v. Daya Lal & Ors (2011) 2 SCC 429 and Asma Shaw v. Islamia College of Science & Commerce, Srinagar Kashmir & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 943 to support their claim that they should be regularized as they were appointed through due process.
• They also relied on Somesh Thapliyal and Anr. v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University and Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 116, which held that appointments made through a proper selection process should be treated as substantive.
• It was argued that the UGC’s approval for the merger of posts implied that the incumbents should continue in their positions.

University’s Arguments:

• The University argued that the appointments were tenure-based, specifically until the end of the XII plan period or until the scheme lasted, and were not permanent.
• They contended that after the UGC permitted the merger of posts, a fresh selection process was necessary.
• The University claimed that the appellants’ appointments were a form of “backdoor entry” and could not be regularized.
• They pointed out that a three-member committee found prima facie evidence of misconduct against the appellants.
• The University argued that the UGC’s letters only allowed the merger of posts, not the automatic continuation of the teachers.
• They submitted that the resolution of the Executive Council dated September 15, 2020, which accepted the recommendation of the three-member committee has not been challenged before the High Court.

UGC’s Stand:

• The UGC supported the appellants’ position, stating that individuals appointed through a proper selection process and who met the prescribed qualifications should be continued after the merger.
• The UGC reiterated its stance from the letters dated 18th April 2019 and 25th June 2019, emphasizing that the teachers appointed through a proper selection process, fulfilling all educational qualifications, and approved by statutory bodies, could be merged under the regular establishment budget of the University.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was right in holding that the appointments of the appellants were purely temporary and not substantive in nature.
2. Whether the University was justified in initiating a fresh selection process for the posts held by the appellants after the merger of those posts with the regular establishment.
3. Whether the UGC’s communications regarding the merger of posts implied that the incumbents should continue in their positions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 – The Court distinguished this case, which dealt with irregular appointments, stating that the appellants’ appointments were not irregular as they were made through a proper selection process. (Supreme Court of India)
• State of Rajasthan & Ors v. Daya Lal & Ors (2011) 2 SCC 429 – This case was cited to support the argument that appointments made through due process should be regularized. (Supreme Court of India)
• Somesh Thapliyal and Anr. v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University and Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 116 – The Court relied on this case, which held that appointments made through a proper selection process should be treated as substantive in character. (Supreme Court of India)
• Asma Shaw v. Islamia College of Science & Commerce, Srinagar Kashmir & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 943 – This case was cited to support the argument that the appellants should be regularized as they were appointed through due process. (Supreme Court of India)
• Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and others (2015) 6 SCC 363 – This case was cited to highlight the importance of the position of UGC. (Supreme Court of India)

Legal Provisions:

• Jamia Milia Act, 1988 – The Act under which the University was constituted. The Court considered Statute 25 framed under this Act, which governs the selection process for faculty appointments.
• University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations – The regulations framed by the UGC for the determination of standards of universities, promotion and coordination of university education, for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities, for defining the qualifications regarding the teaching staff of the university, maintenance of standards, etc.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, stating that it did not apply to cases where appointments were made through a proper selection process.
• The Court followed State of Rajasthan & Ors v. Daya Lal & Ors (2011) 2 SCC 429 and Asma Shaw v. Islamia College of Science & Commerce, Srinagar Kashmir & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 943, using them to support the argument that appointments made through due process should be regularized.
• The Court relied on Somesh Thapliyal and Anr. v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University and Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 116, holding that appointments made through a proper selection process should be treated as substantive.
• The Court cited Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and others (2015) 6 SCC 363 to highlight the importance of the position of UGC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The fact that the appellants were appointed through a regular selection process.
• The UGC’s approval for the merger of posts and its clarification that teachers appointed through a proper selection process could be merged with the regular establishment.
• The Court’s emphasis on the importance of following the UGC’s guidelines and regulations.
• The Court’s view that the University’s decision to initiate a fresh selection process was unjust and arbitrary.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the legal framework and the interpretation of UGC guidelines, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the University’s arguments, finding them to be arbitrary and unjust. The Court emphasized the importance of the UGC’s role in maintaining standards in higher education.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment in Somesh Thapliyal and Anr. v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University and Anr. (2021) 10 SCC 116:

“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.”

“In the instant case, after the teaching posts in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences have been duly sanctioned and approved by the University Grants Commission of which a detailed reference has been made, supported by the letter sent to the University Grants Commission dated 14-8-2020 indicating the fact that the present appellants are working against the teaching posts of Associate Professor/Assistant Professor sanctioned in compliance of the norms of the AICTE/PCI and are appointed as per the requirements, qualifications and selection procedure in accordance with the 1973 Act and proposed by the University, such incumbents shall be treated to be appointed against the sanctioned posts for all practical purposes.”

The Court also quoted the following from the judgment in Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and others (2015) 6 SCC 363:

“From the aforesaid provisions, we find that the University Grants Commission has been established for the determination of standard of universities, promotion and coordination of university education, for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities, for defining the qualifications regarding the teaching staff of the university, maintenance of standards, etc. For the purpose of performing its functions under the UGC Act ( see Section 12 ) like defining the qualifications and standard that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed in the universities [ see Sections 26(1)(e) & (g) ] UGC is empowered to frame regulations. It is only when both the Houses of Parliament approve the regulation, the same can be given effect to. Thus, we hold that the UGC Regulations though a subordinate legislation has binding effect on the universities to which it applies; and consequence of such a binding effect would be that the universities are bound to follow the same. It is not open to the university to ignore the UGC Regulations which are framed for the purpose of maintaining the standards in the universities.”

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court. The Court ordered the following:

1. The appellants are entitled to be reinstated in their respective positions as Associate Professor and Assistant Professor with all consequential benefits.
2. The University is directed to comply with the order of reinstatement within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment.
3. The University is directed to pay the arrears of salary to the appellants within a period of eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
4. The Court clarified that the order of reinstatement is without prejudice to any disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against the appellants.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for service law, particularly in the context of appointments in universities and educational institutions. The key implications are:

• Substantive Appointments: The judgment clarifies that appointments made through a proper selection process are substantive in nature, regardless of whether the posts are temporary or permanent. This provides security to teachers appointed through due process.
• UGC Guidelines: The judgment emphasizes the binding nature of UGC guidelines and regulations. Universities must follow these guidelines when merging posts and regularizing appointments.
• Protection of Teachers’ Rights: The judgment protects the rights of teachers who were appointed through a proper selection process and who meet the prescribed qualifications. It prevents arbitrary termination of services after the merger of posts.
• Judicial Scrutiny: The judgment reinforces the importance of judicial scrutiny of decisions made by universities, particularly those related to appointments and service conditions.