MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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