The Delhi High Court on 5th March,2021 comprising of a single judge bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed a plea challenging the appointment of Dr. Najma Akhtar as the Vice-Chancellor of the Jamia Millia Islamia University while finding no merit in the petition the bench called the appointment of Dr. Najma as justified. (M Ehtesham-ul-Haq vs UOI & Ors).
Highlighting the position of law, the bench noted that “the Court can not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Search Committee.”
Facts of the case
The brief facts of the case were that consequent to the acceptance of the resignation of the then serving Vice-Chancellor of the University by the Visitor/ the President of India, the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource and Development advertised the post of the Vice-Chancellor with the last date of receipt of application as September 9, 2018. The eligibility requirements were as per the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. Pursuant to this, the President of India, went ahead and approved the name of Prof. D.P. Singh, Chairman, UGC as Chairman of the Search Committee. Two other members were appointed to the Committee.
Contention of the parties
The petitioner, advocate M Ehtesham-ul-Haq, had alleged that the entire process which culminated in the appointment of Dr Akhtar as the Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia was a colourable exercise of power and in flagrant violation of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988 (JMI Act) read with Clause 7.3.0 of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010.
As per the petitioner, the Search Committee constituted for purposes of appointment of a Vice-Chancellor was marred by illegalities.
It was claimed that the Search Committee inter alia recommended three names including Akhtar’s, out of the 13 shortlisted candidates subject to vigilance and other clearance, vide a completely non-speaking order, without recording reasons.
The petitioner added that although the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) initially denied clearance to Dr. Akhtar, the same was revoked by the MHRD’s intervention which was impermissible in law.
On the other hand, the Central government opposed the maintainability of the petition and argued that all procedures were duly followed.
It was stated that the petitioner failed to point out any statutory violation in the appointment process and has rather sought to enter upon apprehensions/imaginative allegations.
Court's Observation and Judgment
In view of the documents in relation to the appointment process and the credentials of the persons who formed part of the Serach Committee, the Court observed that there was due application of mind on the competence/suitability of the names recommended.
The bench while referring to the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences noted that:
“it is not necessary for a selection committee to give reasons of its conclusion unless the rule governing the appointment to a particular post stipulates so. In the case in hand, Clause 7.3 (ii) of the UGC Regulations does not contemplate reasons to be given against each name, so recommended.”
The bench while further justifying the position of law and referring to the case of R.K. Jain noted that:
“the court can not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Search Committee. Rather the scope is limited to judicial review of the decision whereby the court is only concerned with whether the incumbent possessed qualifications for the appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or whether the procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
