TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Once Appointed After a Proper Selection Procedure, the Appointments Shall Be Regularized: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision dated April 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the sanctity of regular selection procedures in university appointments. The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal delivered a judgment reinstating the appellants, Meher Fatima Hussain, Sabiha Hussain, and Suraiya Tabassum to their respective posts at Jamia Milia Islamia University.

The crux of the judgment revolves around the procedural correctness and legitimacy of university appointments and the binding nature of the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) guidelines on university administrations.

The appellants were appointed at Jamia Milia Islamia in various faculty positions following a UGC-sanctioned selection process. Despite fulfilling all necessary qualifications and being selected through a due process, their appointments were challenged, leading to their displacement from their respective positions. The core issue dealt with the regularity of their appointments and subsequent removal without just cause.

Legitimacy of Appointments: The court noted that all appointments were made following a regular selection process as per UGC guidelines, which should be respected and rendered substantive unless proven otherwise.

Role of the UGC: Highlighting the UGC’s directive, the court reiterated that faculty positions approved and filled through due selection processes should be considered regularized. The court found that the appellants’ initial appointments and their qualifications met the UGC’s stringent criteria, deeming them eligible for permanency in their roles.

Irregular Dismissal: Addressing the contentious issue of their dismissal, the Supreme Court observed that their removal was arbitrary and lacked substantial legal grounds. The court criticized the University’s failure to adhere to the procedural fairness promised under UGC regulations and the previous commitments made by the institution itself.

Reinstatement and Continuity of Service: The appellants were ordered to be reinstated within three months, acknowledging their right to continuity in service, though without entitlement to back pay for the period they were not in service. This decision aims to correct the procedural missteps encountered during their dismissal and ensure justice is served in alignment with statutory compliance.

Decision In concluding their judgment, the Justices set aside the impugned judgment, directing Jamia Milia Islamia to reinstate the appellants immediately, thus upholding the integrity of the selection process and the applicability of UGC guidelines in university appointments.

Date of Decision: April 15, 2024.

Meher Fatima Hussain vs. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News