Delhi High Court
Mohammad Kasim, vs Jamia Millia Isllamia University ... on 16 April, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 8633/2011 & W.P.(C) No.8634/2011
% 16th April, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 8633/2011
MOHAMMAD KASIM, ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate.
VERSUS
JAMIA MILLIA ISLLAMIA UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.A.Siddiqui and Mr. T.Siddiqui and
Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for R-2.
Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate for R-3/UOI.
+ W.P.(C) 8634/2011
NAAZISH HUSAINI ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate.
VERSUS
JAMIA MILLIA ISLLAMIA UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.A.Siddiqui and Mr. T.Siddiqui and
Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for R-2.
Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate for R-3/UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
W.P.(C) 8633/2011 & 8634/2011 Page 1 of 4
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) No.8633/2011
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Set aside the Inquiry Report dated 09.01.10 being violative of the
Principle of Natural Justice as well as in violation of Article 14,16 & 21 of
the Constitution of India which causes serious prejudice to the petitioner;
(b) Call for the records the entire Inquiry report dated 9.1.2010, records
with regard to appointment of the petitioner, records and proceedings related
to the earlier advertisements issued for the post in 2006 and 2007.
(c) Pass such other or further order(s) as may deem fit and proper to meet
the ends of justice."
2. The facts of the present case are that the enquiry report dated 9.1.2010
was a report prepared by a Retired Judge of this Court in view of the issue of
irregularities in appointments of various persons pursuant to the advertisements
issued by the respondent no.1-University. The enquiry report dated 9.1.2010 gives
a finding that the appointments were irregular inasmuch as various persons did not
have the qualifications required for the appointment.
3. The counsel appearing for respondent no.1 before me has made two
submissions. The first submission is that the services of the petitioner have not
been terminated, there is no process in motion for termination, and in fact, the
services can be terminated only after the President of India gives approval to the
decision of the Executive Council which superseded the selection procedure. It is
W.P.(C) 8633/2011 & 8634/2011 Page 2 of 4
stated that this approval of the President of India is awaited. The second
submission is that if the petitioner is sought to be removed from services, the same
will only be after following the due process of law on holding an enquiry
proceedings wherein the petitioner will have complete liberty to rebut the contents
of the enquiry report dated 9.1.2010 so far as the same relating to the petitioner is
concerned.
4. In my opinion, not only the writ petition is premature but the same is
also misconceived. I say that the writ petition is premature because the President of
India may in fact not give approval to the decision of the Executive Council for
setting aside the selection proceedings. If that happens, petitioner would not be
removed from services. Therefore as of today, the petitioner has no grievance or
cause of action.
5. The next aspect is that counsel for the respondent no.1 has stated that
services of the petitioner as of today have not been terminated and will not be
terminated without following due process of law and holding of an enquiry, and
which is bound to be held before any action is taken as against the petitioner.
Therefore, even for this reason, the petition is misconceived and premature at this
stage because no action has been taken or is presently proposed to be taken against
the petitioner.
W.P.(C) 8633/2011 & 8634/2011 Page 3 of 4
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed giving
liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court in case the respondent no.1
terminates or seeks to illegally terminate the services of the petitioner.
W.P.(C) 8634/2011
7. In view of the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No. 8633/2011 above, this
writ petition is also accordingly dismissed with the same observations.
APRIL 16, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
