*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 27th November, 2012
+ LPA No.775/2012
MOHD. RAMZAN & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Adv.
Versus
JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This intra-court appeal preferred along with an application for condonation of delay of 454 days in filing the same, impugns the order dated 20.07.2011 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.604/1995 preferred by the appellants. The three appellants, who were in or about the year 1990 appointed as Lecturers on ad-hoc basis in the respondent University and whose ad-hoc appointment was extended from time to time and who had so completed almost four and a half years, had filed the said writ petition seeking two-fold reliefs. Firstly, of regularization. Secondly, it was pleaded that the selection for LPA No.775/2012 Page 1 of 7 filling up the vacancies in the posts conducted in the year 1995 and in which the appellants were not selected, was vitiated; quashing thereof was claimed.
2. The learned Single Judge, relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held the appellants to be not entitled to the relief of regularization. No arguments have been addressed by the counsel for the appellants on the said count. Rather the counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Single Judge treated the writ petition as primarily for the relief of regularization and has not given due consideration to the alternate relief claimed by the appellants impugning the selection process of the year 1995. Need therefore is not felt to discuss in this appeal, the said aspect.
3. As far as the challenge by the appellants to the selection process is concerned, the learned Single Judge has held that the Selection Committee which met on 10/11.02.1995 was properly constituted in terms of Statute 25 of the respondent University and comprised of imminent academicians whose decisions were unanimous and the charge, of the respondent University favouring its own persons, was not borne out LPA No.775/2012 Page 2 of 7 from the record. It was further held that delegation of powers of Academic Council to the Vice Chancellor for selection of experts to constitute the Selection Committee was permissible in terms of Statute 41 of the respondent University. The learned Single Judge further held that the requisite quorum as per the bye-laws was present in the meetings of the Selection Committee and the absence of the Pro-Vice Chancellor from the said meetings did not vitiate the selection. It will thus be seen that the learned Single Judge has given reasons for negating the second challenge also by the appellants and it is not as if the second challenge has not been considered.
4. The counsel for the appellants has confined his arguments to the validity of the delegation of the powers of the Academic Council to the Vice Chancellor, for nominating the experts to the Selection Committee. It is argued that no valid resolution of the Academic Council so delegating the powers to the Vice Chancellor has been found. Rather, out of the 454 days delay in filing the appeal, the delay of 119 days is attributed to attempts made by the appellants through the medium of Right to Information Act, 2005 for finding the said resolution. The delay of further 43 days is attributed to "no knowledge of the impugned LPA No.775/2012 Page 3 of 7 judgment having been pronounced" and of the remaining 221 days in procuring information unofficially and which had otherwise been refused by the respondent University through proper channels.
5. The challenge in the appeal being to the selection process of the year 1995, we have enquired from the counsel for the appellants whether those appointed nearly 17 years back can now be disturbed. We may notice that the persons whose selection is challenged were neither parties to the writ petition nor are parties to this appeal.
6. The counsel for the appellants has stated that under interim order in the writ petition, the selection was made subject to the final outcome. He further states that the selection was not complete when the writ petition was filed.
7. Even if that be so, we entertain serious doubts about the justification for entertaining a challenge to the selection process in the absence of the selected candidates who as a necessary corollary to the relief being granted would have to be removed and make way for the appellants. Even if during the pendency of the writ petition, the selection then underway, was made subject to the outcome of the writ petition, it LPA No.775/2012 Page 4 of 7 was incumbent upon the appellants to implead the persons ultimately selected and who would be directly affected by the outcome of the writ petition.
8. In the aforesaid light, the delay of 454 days is absolutely fatal. Moreover, no sufficient cause also is disclosed therefor. As aforesaid, out of 454 days, 119 days are attributed to seeking information under the RTI Act and 221 days to seeking information otherwise. No details / particulars of what steps were taken during the said time have been stated. We, even otherwise are of the opinion that delay in filing the appeal cannot be explained on such grounds. It is not as if the appellants were not aware of the resolution of the Academic Council delegating the power to nominate the subject expert in the Selection Committee to the Vice Chancellor. A specific challenge thereto is stated to have been made in the writ petition itself. It is further the case of the appellants that the respondent University in its reply was relying on the said resolution. The appellants contend that the respondent University did not produce the same. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent University appearing on advance notice states that all the relevant records had been LPA No.775/2012 Page 5 of 7 produced before the learned Single Judge and after perusing which the judgment has been pronounced.
9. We are of the opinion that the appellants cannot indulge in a roving and fishing inquiry, specially into facts known fully well at the time of filing the writ petition, after the dismissal of the petition and before filing the appeal. If the appellants entertained doubts about the resolution and the same had not been filed by the respondent University, the appellants ought to have applied before the learned Single Judge for production thereof. The appellants cannot be allowed to attribute the delay of nearly one and a half years in filing the appeal, to efforts to resurrect their case. There is thus no sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
10. Even on merits we do not find any error in the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellants did not challenge the constitution of the Selection Committee at the contemporaneous time and rather participated in the selection process before the said Committee and cannot, after so taking a chance and being unsuccessful, be permitted to challenge the same. As LPA No.775/2012 Page 6 of 7 aforesaid it is not challenged, at least now, that such delegation is permissible under the Statutes of the University.
11. We do not find the appellant to be having any case on merits also. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J CHIEF JUSTICE NOVEMBER 27, 2012 „gsr‟ LPA No.775/2012 Page 7 of 7