Mohd. Ramzan & Ors. vs Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 6775 Del

          *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

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

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

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

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

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

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‟