The Delhi High Court Invalidates Jamia Millia Islamia’s Officiating VC Appointment: Cited Reason as Initial Flawed Appointment Process
Case Title – MD Shami Ahmad Ansari & Anr, Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.
Case Number – W.P. (C) 15161/2023
Dated on – 22nd May, 2024
Quorum – Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of MD Shami Ahmad Ansari & Anr, Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors. the Vice Chancellor (VC) of Jamia Milia Islamia University appointed Prof. Eqbal Hussain as the Pro Vice Chancellor (PVC) on the 14th of September, 2023 in accordance with the relevant statutes of the university. A notification was issued the following day, confirming Hussain’s assumptions of the PVC role. Later, an office was issued on the 26th September, 2023, stating that if the office of the VC became vacant or the VC was unable to perform the duties, Hussain would act as the Officiating VC until a new VC was appointed or the existing one resumed duty. During a period when the VC was abroad from the 27th of September to 8th October, 2023, Hussain served as the Officiating VC as per university statutes. On the 3rd of November, 2023, the Ministry of Education was informed by the VC about handling over the charge of the VC to Hussain upon the VC’s superannuation on the 12th of November,2023. Subsequently, an officer order was issued on the same date, officially transferring the charge of Officiating VC to Hussain. Aggrieved by these actions, the Appellant instituted a petition challenging the appointments as PVC and later as Officiating VC, alleging violations of university statues, ordinances, the JMI Act, and non-compliance with the UGC Regulations of 2018. They sought a writ of Quo Warranto from the court.
ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the appointment of the Respondent No. 2 as PVC and subsequently as Officiating VC was made in accordance with the provisions of the JMI Act, Statutes, and UGC regulations?
Whether the continuation of the Respondent No. 2 as the officiating VC after the term of the previous VC ended was unlawful, considering the co-terminus nature of the tenure of the PVC with that of the VC?
Whether the Appellant have standing to challenge the appointments and whether they exhausted alternative remedies available under the law?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 8 of the Statutes of Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988 prescribes that The President of India shall be the Visitor of the University
Section 11(3) of the Statutes of Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988 prescribes that The Shaikh-ul-Jamia (Vice-Chancellor) may, if he is of opinion that immediate action is necessary on any matter, exercise any power conferred on any authority of the University by or under this Act and shall report to such authority the action taken by him on such matter
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the appointment of the Respondent No. 2 (the officiating VC) was made in the violation of the JMI Act, Statutes, and UGC Regulations and that the emergent powers under Section 11(3) were wrongly invoked, and the appointment did not follow the correct procedure outlined in the Statutes.
The Appellant contends that the appointment of Respondent No. 2 as PVC and subsequently as officiating VC was not in accordance with past practices and was an attempt to circumvent the established procedures for appointment and that the tenure of the PVC is co-terminus with that of the VC, and therefore, Respondent No. 2 continuation as Officiating VC after the term of the VC ended was illegal.
Further, it was asserted that the provisions of the Statute 2(6) were misinterpreted to justify the appointment of the Respondent No. 2, and the exercise of powers under Section 11(3) was not justified by any emergent situation and that the appointment contravened Regulation 7.0 of the UGC Regulations, which govern appointments to the post of PVC and VC.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that appointment of the Respondent No. 2 was made in compliance with the relevant provisions of the JMI Act and Statutes. They contend that the VC had the authority to make such appointments under Section 11(3) in emergent situations. The Respondents justify the exercise of powers by the VC under Section 11(3) and assert that the appointment of the Respondent No. 2 as PVC and later Officiating VC was necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the University.
The Respondent questioned the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioners did not raise objections at the appropriate time, and the petition lacks merit and that the provisions of Statute 2(6) and second proviso to Statute 4(2) allow for the continuation of Respondent No. 2 as Officiating VC until a new VC assumes office.
It was asserted that there is no repugnancy between the University’s Statues and the UGC Regulations, and the appointment of Respondent No. 2 was in line with both sets of regulations.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of MD Shami Ahmad Ansari & Anr, Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors. meticulously analysed the provisions of the JMI Act, 1988, along with the Statutes framed thereunder and the UGC Regulations, 2018. Concerning the appointment of the Respondent as PVC and subsequently as Officiating VC, the court discovered that the procedure outlined in the Statutes were not followed. The Court emphasized that the appointment of the respondent as PVC violated Statute 4, as there was no approval from the Executive Council (EC) as required. Additionally, the subsequent appointment of the respondent as officiating VC was deemed invalid due to the initial flawed appointment process. The court also emphasized that the appointment of the respondent as PVC violated Statute 4, as there was no approval from the Executive Council (EC) as required. Moreover, the subsequent appointment of the respondent as officiating VC was deemed invalid due to the initial flawed appointment process. The court scrutinized the invocation of Section 11(3) of the JMI Act, which grants emergency powers to the VC. The court concluded that such powers should only be exercised in extraordinary situations, which were not evident in this case. The court, in this case, emphasized that the appointment of the respondent as PVC violated Statute 4, as there was no approval from the Executive Council (EC) as required. Additionally, the subsequent appointment of the respondent as officiating VC was deemed invalid due to the initial flawed appointment process.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment