Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 303
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4963 OF 2024
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8333 of 2023)
MEHER FATIMA HUSSAIN …APPELLANT
VERSUS
JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4964 OF 2024 @ SLP(C) NO. 8416 of 2023
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4965 OF 2024 @ SLP(C) NO. 8775 of 2023
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
th
2. By the impugned judgment dated 11 April 2023, Letters
Patent Appeals preferred by the appellants herein were
dismissed.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
CASE OF SABIHA HUSSAIN
3. A few factual details must be stated to appreciate the
controversy. The appellant (Sabiha Hussain), in a Civil Appeal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHISH KONDLE
Date: 2024.04.15
18:26:36 IST
Reason:
arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8416 of 2023, was
initially appointed as a Reader on probation on an ad-hoc basis
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 1 of 20
by Jamia Milia Islamia, a University constituted under an Act
of Parliament (for short, ‘the University’) . The 1st and 2nd
th
respondents represent the University. On 6 August 2008, she
was appointed to a sanctioned post of Reader in the programme
for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy in Dr.
K.R. Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minority Studies. The
appointment was made pursuant to the advertisement dated
st
1 May 2008. According to the appellant's case, her
appointment was made through a properly constituted
Selection Committee. The said appellant was later appointed as
an Associate Professor. She was appointed a professor under
the Career Advancement Schemes of 2010 of the University
th
Grants Commission (for short, ‘UGC’) , effective 6 August
st rd
2014. The 1 respondent vide order dated 23 February 2016
gave her additional charge of the post of Director in Sarojini
Naidu Centre for Women Studies (for short, ‘Sarojini Naidu
Centre’).
th
4. The University published an advertisement on 12 July
2016, inviting applications to the post of Professor/Director
and other academic posts in the Sarojini Naidu Centre
st
established by the 1 respondent. Some of the posts advertised
were tenure posts till the XII plan of the UGC. Some of the
posts were non-plan posts. She applied pursuant to the
th
advertisement. By a letter of appointment dated 8 December
2016, she was appointed as the Professor/Director. The
st
Executive Council of the 1 respondent confirmed her
th
appointment in a meeting held on 10 March 2017.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 2 of 20
5. The University addressed a letter to the UGC stating that
the sanctioned posts at the Sarojini Naidu Centre were
advertised and have been duly filled in by following the regular
selection process. A prayer was made in the said letter by the
University to the UGC to merge Sarojini Naidu Centre into the
regular establishment of the University. One more
representation was made by the Registrar of the University to
UGC, making a similar request. The UGC responded to the
letters mentioned above by informing the University that if the
appointments of the teachers have been made by way of a
regular selection process, the same can be regularised. In a
th
letter dated 07 June 2019, even the Teacher’s Association of
the University sought clarification from UGC. The clarification
was whether the incumbents' services, including the appellants
herein, would be confirmed or terminated. In a letter dated
25th June 2019, the UGC clarified that the teachers appointed
through the proper selection procedure and who are duly
qualified shall stand merged under the regular establishment
budget of the University.
th
6. By a letter dated 26 June 2019, the appellant sought
confirmation of service by addressing a letter to the University.
After that, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to
st
her for misconduct. On 1 July 2019 the appellant was
replaced by another professor as the Director of Sarojini Naidu
Centre. The appellant replied to the show cause notice. The
appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging her abrupt removal
from the post of Director and the decision not to regularise her
st
appointment. On 21 August 2019, the learned Single Judge
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 3 of 20
of the High Court directed the reinstatement of the appellant to
the post of Professor/Director of Sarojini Naidu Centre. This
st
was done by way of an interim order. On 1 April 2020, the
University stopped the functioning of the Sarojini Naidu
Centre. After that, the first respondent advertised the post held
by the appellant. In the Writ Petition, the UGC filed an affidavit
stating that it had given “in-principle approval” to the
University to regularise the appointees of Sarojini Naidu
Centre, including the appellant. However, by judgment and
th
order dated 18 August 2021, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the appointment
of the appellant was purely temporary. Being aggrieved by the
said order, the appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal. In
the Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court granted an interim
order of stay of the advertisement. Several interim orders were
th
passed in the appeal. On 11 April 2023, the High Court
passed the impugned judgment, dismissing the appeal
preferred by the appellant.
CASE OF MEHER FATIMA HUSSAIN
7. Now, coming to the facts of the Civil Appeal arising out of
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8333 of 2023, the appellant
(Meher Fatima Hussain) was appointed to the post of Lecturer
th
on probation in the said University with effect from 6 August
th
2008. Subsequently, by the order dated 29 April 2010, the
University converted the post from a probationary post to a
temporary post. As in the case of the other appellant (Sabiha
Hussain), the initial appointment of the appellant was in Dr.
K.R. Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minority Studies. The
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 4 of 20
appellant received the upgradation benefit of the Career
Advancement Scheme of the UGC. According to the
th
advertisement published on 10 August 2016 for filling in
academic posts in Sarojini Naidu Centre, the appellant applied
th
for the post of Associate Professor. On 5 December 2016, the
University issued a letter offering an appointment to the
appellant. She was offered the post of Associate Professor
(tenure Post till XII plan period or till the scheme lasts) in the
Sarojini Naidu Centre. The appellant was appointed with effect
th
from 8 December 2016. The steps taken by the University to
seek approval from the UGC for the merger of the posts in
Sarojini Naidu Centre into regular establishment have already
th
been set out earlier. On 28 June 2019, a show cause notice
was served upon the appellant. As stated earlier, an
advertisement was issued by the University inviting
applications. Therefore, a Writ Petition was filed by the
appellant. During the pendency of the petition, the UGC issued
a public notice continuing the UGC Women Studies Scheme till
st
31 March 2021. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ
th
Petition on 18 August 2021. Being aggrieved by the judgment
of the Single Judge, the appellant preferred Letters Patent
Appeal before the Division Bench, which has been dismissed
by the impugned judgment.
CASE OF SURAIYA TABASSUM
8. Now, coming to the facts of the civil appeal arising out of
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8775 of 2023, the appellant
(Suraiya Tabassum) was appointed as the Assistant Professor
(tenure post till XII Plan period or till the scheme lasts) in the
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 5 of 20
Sarojini Naidu Centre pursuant to the advertisement dated
th
12th July 2016. The letter of appointment was issued on 8
December 2016. The facts are more or less similar to those of
the civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.
8333 of 2023.
SUBMISSIONS
9. Detailed submissions were made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties. Firstly, we will refer to the
submissions made in the Civil Appeal arising from Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 8416 of 2023. At the outset, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
Division Bench had taken an erroneous view of the matter by
applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of State
1
of Karnataka v. Uma Devi . The submission of the learned
counsel is that the High Court proceeded on an erroneous
footing that the appellant's appointment was irregular. The
submission is that in the present case, the University had
conducted the appointment process as per the provisions of the
relevant University Statute. Learned counsel relied upon
various decisions which explain the earlier decision in the case
1
of Uma Devi . He relied upon decisions in the cases of State
2
of Rajasthan & Ors v. Daya Lal & Ors. and Asma Shaw v.
Islamia College of Science & Commerce, Srinagar
3
Kashmir & Ors. Learned counsel pointed out that the
appellant has been a regular teaching staff member since 2008,
1
(2006) 4 SCC 1
2
(2011) 2 SCC 429
3
2023 SCC OnLine SC 943
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 6 of 20
when she joined as an Associate Professor. Thereafter, she was
promoted to the post of Professor and appointed Honorary
Director of Sarojini Naidu Centre in February 2016. In
addition, she held the post of Director at the Centre for Social
Exclusion and Inclusive Policy (CSEIP). Based on the
th
advertisement dated 12 July 2016, the appellant applied for
the post of Professor/Director in Sarojini Naidu Centre. After
applying Statute 25, framed under the Jamia Milia Act, 1988,
the entire selection process was completed, and the appellant
met the necessary criteria. She was shortlisted for an interview
by the Selection Committee. Learned counsel pointed out that
though she was a member of the Selection Committee by virtue
of being the Honorary Director at Sarojini Naidu Centre, she
did not participate in the meeting. The University issued a letter
of appointment on 8th December 2016 to the appellant,
appointing her as Professor/Director of Sarojini Naidu Centre.
The submission of the learned counsel is that she was
appointed after following the due process.
10. Inviting our attention to a letter dated 18th April 2019
sent by the UGC, learned counsel submitted that the UGC was
of the view that if the appointments have been made by way of
a regular selection process, the same shall be regularized.
Learned counsel submitted that it is an admitted position that
the appellant has been working on a sanctioned post and was
selected after following due process of law. He, therefore, urged
that the view taken by the High Court is completely erroneous.
11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in
the civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 7 of 20
8775 of 2023 urged that after following due process of law, the
th
appellant was appointed as an Assistant Professor on 8
December 2016 in the Sarojini Naidu Centre. Learned counsel
submitted that as per the advice of the UGC, as the
appointment of the appellant was made after following a
regular process, after the merger of the posts in the regular
establishment, the appointment of the appellant ought to have
been continued.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed heavy
reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Somesh
Thapliyal and Anr. v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal
4
University and Anr. and, in particular, what is held in
paragraph 49.
13. The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant in the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 8333 of 2023 are similar to those made in other
cases.
14. Learned Additional Solicitor General representing the
University pointed out that the appointment of the three
appellants with Sarojini Naidu Centre was not permanent, and
as mentioned in the letters of appointment, the appointments
were made on tenure post till the XII plan period or till the
scheme lasts. Therefore, after UGC permitted the merger of the
posts in the Sarojini Naidu Centre with the regular
establishment, a fresh procedure for selection had to be carried
out. The learned counsel submitted that the reliance placed by
4
(2021) 10 SCC 116
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 8 of 20
appellants on the decision of this Court in the case of Asma
3
Shaw is misplaced as the appellants were appointed on a
tenure post specifically till the age of superannuation. He
submitted that the appellants' cases are of backdoor entry, and
hence, they cannot be regularised in service. Learned counsel
also pointed out that show cause notice of misconduct was also
issued to them, and a three-member committee headed by a
retired Judge of the High Court found that there was prima
facie evidence of misconduct against the appellants and
recommended that a regular Disciplinary Committee may be
set up to hold an enquiry. He pointed out that the same
committee recommended that after the merger, a fresh
procedure of the appointment process needs to be conducted.
Our attention was invited to a decision of the Executive Council
of the University, which accepted the recommendation of the
three-member committee on both aspects.
15. Learned counsel submitted that the resolution of the
Executive Council dated September 15, 2020, has not been
challenged before the High Court. The learned Counsel
submitted that the UGC had not issued any direction that the
teachers appointed through the earlier process should be
continued. The UGC has only allowed the merger of the
teaching staff with the regular establishment.
16. The learned counsel appearing for UGC has reiterated the
stand taken before the High Court that persons appointed
through a proper selection process who were fulfilling
qualifications as prescribed by the UGC regulations can be
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 9 of 20
continued after the merger with the regular establishment of
the University.
OUR VIEW
17. For convenience, we are referring to the appellants by
their first names, Meher, Sabiha, and Suraiya. As far as Meher
is concerned, after following regular procedure, by a letter of
th
appointment dated 6 August 2008, she was appointed to the
post of Lecturer in Dr. K.R. Narayanan Centre for Dalit and
Minority Studies of the said University. She was appointed on
probation. The appointment letter clarifies that though she was
appointed on probation, it will confer no title on her to continue
on a long-term basis. On the same day, Sabiha was appointed
as the Reader on probation with a similar clause that said that
appointment on probation would not confer any title on her to
continue on a long-term basis. She was also appointed in Dr.
K.R. Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minority Studies. As far
as Suraiya is concerned, she was not appointed in 2008. We
may note that in the case of Meher and Sabiha, by a resolution
th
of the Executive Council dated 29 April 2010, their
probationary appointment was converted into a temporary
th
appointment. As far as Sabiha is concerned, by order dated 15
December 2015, her promotion was approved by the University
under UGC-CAS-1998 and 2010. All three were appointed in
December 2016 in the posts mentioned earlier based on the
th
advertisement dated 12 July 2016.
th
18. The University published an advertisement on 12 July
2016 inviting applications for various posts. The present
appellants applied for different posts under the said
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 10 of 20
advertisement. Meher was appointed by appointment order
th
dated 8 December 2016 as an Associate Professor. Sabiha
was appointed on the same day to the post of
Professor/Director. Suraiya was appointed as an Associate
Professor on the same day. All three appointment letters
mentioned that they were appointed on tenure post till the XII
Plan period or till the scheme lasted. They were appointed in
the Sarojini Naidu Centre. We may note here that the
appointment of all three was pursuant to the process of
th
appointment initiated based on the advertisement dated 12
July 2016. They were selected by a regular selection committee,
th
which recommended their appointments on 30 November
2016. The Executive Council of the University approved the
appointments.
19. As far as Sabiha is concerned, there is one fact which is
rd
peculiar to her. On 23 February 2016, the University's Vice
Chancellor appointed her as the Honorary Director of Sarojini
rd
Naidu Centre until further orders. The office order dated 23
February 2016 clarifies that her assignment as the Honorary
Director of Sarojini Naidu Centre will be an additional
assignment in addition to her duties as a professor in Dr. K.R.
Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minority Studies. One of the
grounds that the High Court held against her is that she was a
member of the Selection Committee in her capacity as the
Director of Sarojini Naidu Centre, and therefore, her
th
appointment made on 08 December 2016 is illegal. However,
the perusal of the minutes of the relevant meeting shows that
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 11 of 20
she never participated in the relevant Selection Committee
meetings concerning her appointment.
20. Thus, it can be concluded that the appellants'
appointments in December 2016 were made according to a
regular selection process commenced based on an
th
advertisement dated 12 July 2016. The selection committee
conducted a regular selection process. There is no dispute that
the appellants hold qualifications prescribed by the UGC for
the posts on which they were appointed in December 2016.
th nd
21. On 27 April 2017, the 2 respondent – Registrar of the
University, addressed a letter to UGC. The contents of the said
letters are material, which reads thus:
“……………………………………………………………
Sub: Transferring the faculty positions under
the various Plan schemes to Non-plan
(maintenance grant) of Jamia Millia
Islamia – reg.
Dear Sir/Madam,
With reference to the UGC letter F No.
th
71/2012(WS) dated 25 March 2012 conveying
the approval for continuation of financial
assistance under the scheme ‘Development of
Women Studies in India Universities and
Colleges – Continuation of Women’s Studies
Centres in the XII Plan’ and to
(copy enclosed)
inform that all the teaching as well as non-
teaching plan positions (except three posts of
Research Associate) sanctioned for the Sarojini
Naidu Centre for Women’s Studies, J.M.1 has
been filled by the University through proper
Selection Committees.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 12 of 20
In view of the above, it is requested that the
expenditure to be incurred on the salary of
faculty positions sanctioned under the aforesaid
scheme may be merged into the Non-plan
(maintenance grant) of Jamia Millia Islamia.
Thanking you.
Yours sincerely
Sd/-
(A.P. Siddiqui) IPS
Registrar”
(underline supplied)
In the Annexure to the said letter, the names of the three
appellants were mentioned as persons working in the teaching
positions at Sarojini Naidu Centre. Thus, the University
admitted that the appellants were appointed to the respective
posts by the University through a proper selection process. The
present appellants were appointed to the teaching posts in
Sarojini Naidu Centre. The appellants, along with other
teachers, also made a representation to the Vice Chancellor for
their continuation after the merger.
th
22. On 18 April 2019, the UGC informed the University that
the merger of all teaching positions into the regular
establishment of the University has been approved. The
material part of the said letter reads thus:
“ The Registrar.
Jamia Millia Islamia
Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauhar Marg,
New Delhi-110025
Subject: Merger of Teaching posts sanctioned
by UGC under Centre for Women’s Studies
into regular establishment of the University
budget.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 13 of 20
Sir,
With reference to your letter No. Ref.
No.PDB/S-202Vol.III/2018/DRNO.56 dated
31.07.2018 on the subject mentioned above, the
undersigned is directed to convey the approval of
UGC to merge the all teaching positions into
regular establishment of the University which
were sanctioned by UGC under Centre for
Women’s Studies.
……………………………………………………………
…………………………….……………………………”
(underline supplied)
Thus, the UGC permitted the University to merge the teaching
posts in Sarojini Naidu Centre into its regular establishment.
nd
23. On 2 May 2019, the Executive Council of the University
passed a resolution approving the merger of teaching posts of
Sarojini Naidu Centre into the regular establishment of the
University. It was resolved that these posts be filled in through
a proper selection committee after publishing an
advertisement. Against the said decision to conduct a fresh
process of appointment, the teachers made a representation to
th
the University as well as to the UGC. By letter dated 25 June
2019, the UGC communicated to the Registrar of the University
as under:
“..…………………………………………………………
th
25 June, 2019
The Registrar
Jamia Millia Islamia
Maulana Mohammed Ali Jauhar Marg
New Delhi-110025
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 14 of 20
Sub: Merger of teaching posts sanctioned by
UGC under Centre for Women’s studies into
regular establishment budget of the
University-regarding.
Sir,
This is in continuation to this office letter
th
number F.7-65/2012(WS) dated 18 April, 2019
(copy enclosed), on the subject mentioned above,
it is clarified that the persons appointed through
proper selection procedure/Committee and who
are fulfilling all educational and other
qualifications as prescribed in UGC Regulations
at that time and whose appointments were
approved by the statutory bodies, the incumbent
teaching staff may be merged under the regular
establishment budget of the Jamia Millia Islamia.
……………………………………..…………………….”
(underline supplied)
Thus, UGC specifically informed the University that the
teachers appointed through a proper selection process, who
fulfilled the educational and other qualifications prescribed by
UGC and whose appointments were approved by the Statutory
bodies, can be merged with the regular establishment of the
University. Thus, in so many words UGC permitted the
University to treat the appellants and similarly situated
employees as regularly appointed and merge their posts with
the regular establishment budget of the University. The
University is capitalising on the word “may” used in the said
letter to contend that it was not mandatory for the University
to continue the appellants and similarly situated teachers.
24. In the counter filed by the UGC before the High Court,
the UGC reiterated what was stated in its letters dated 18th
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 15 of 20
April 2019 and 25th June 2019, which we have quoted above.
Even in the written submissions filed before this Court, the
th
UGC has reiterated its stand in the letter dated 25 June 2019.
In paragraph 5 of the written submissions, UGC stated thus:
“ 5. It is submitted that Central University
Bureau of UGC vide letter No.F.24-
1/2015(CU) dated 25.06.2019 has clarified
that the persons appointed through proper
selection procedure/committee and who
are fulfilling all educational and other
qualifications as prescribed in UGC
Regulations at that time and whose
appointments were approved by the
Statutory bodies, the incumbent teaching
staff may be merged under regular
establishment budget of the Jamia Millia
Islamia.”
(emphasis added)
25. As far as the role of the UGC is concerned, in paragraph
27 of the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyani
5
Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and others, this Court held
thus:
“27. From the aforesaid provisions, we find that
the University Grants Commission has been
established for the determination of standard of
universities, promotion and coordination of
university education, for the determination and
maintenance of standards of teaching,
examination and research in universities, for
defining the qualifications regarding the
5
(2015) 6 SCC 363
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 16 of 20
teaching staff of the university, maintenance of
standards, etc. For the purpose of performing
its functions under the UGC Act ( see Section 12 )
like defining the qualifications and standard
that should ordinarily be required of any person
to be appointed in the universities [ see Sections
26(1)(e) & (g) ] UGC is empowered to frame
regulations. It is only when both the Houses of
Parliament approve the regulation, the same
can be given effect to. Thus, we hold that the
UGC Regulations though a subordinate
legislation has binding effect on the universities
to which it applies; and consequence of failure
of the university to comply with the
recommendations of the Commission, UGC
may withhold the grants to the university made
out of the fund of the Commission ( see Section
14). ”
26. This Court has highlighted the importance of the position
of UGC. It is true that the letter dated 25th June 2019
addressed by the UGC has used the word ‘may’. However,
considering the statutory position of the UGC, there was no
reason for the University not to follow what the UGC stated.
Much capital was made of the fact that the letters of
appointment mentioned that the posts were tenure posts till
the XII Plan period or till the scheme lasted. We may note that
nothing has been placed on record showing that the scheme
expired. Moreover, the appellants should have been continued
after the merger, as suggested by the UGC.
27. At this stage, we may also refer to the case of Somesh
4
Thapliyal . This Court was dealing with a case of appointment
of teachers (Associate Professors/Assistant Professors). They
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 17 of 20
were appointed after going through the process of selection
provided under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973.
In paragraphs 49 and 50, this Court held thus:
“49. In our considered view, once the
appellants have gone through the process of
selection provided under the scheme of the
1973 Act regardless of the fact whether the
post is temporary or permanent in nature, at
least their appointment is substantive in
character and could be made permanent as
and when the post is permanently
sanctioned by the competent authority.
50. In the instant case, after the teaching posts
in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences
have been duly sanctioned and approved by the
University Grants Commission of which a
detailed reference has been made, supported by
the letter sent to the University Grants
Commission dated 14-8-2020 indicating the
fact that the present appellants are working
against the teaching posts of Associate
Professor/Assistant Professor sanctioned in
compliance of the norms of the A ICTE /PCI and
are appointed as per the requirements,
qualifications and selection procedure in
accordance with the 1973 Act and proposed by
the University, such incumbents shall be
treated to be appointed against the sanctioned
posts for all practical purposes. ”
(emphasis added)
28. Thus, considering that appellants were appointed after
undergoing a regular selection process and they possess
relevant qualifications as per the norms of UGC, they should
have been continued on the posts merged with the regular
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 18 of 20
establishment of the University instead of adopting the fresh
selection procedure. In the facts of this case, the University's
action of not continuing them and starting a fresh selection
process is unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the employment of the
appellants will have to be continued after merger.
29. A committee appointed by the University headed by the
retired High Court Judge has recommended initiating a
Disciplinary Enquiry against the appellants. Notwithstanding
this judgment, it will always be open for the University to
proceed with the Disciplinary Enquiry subject to all just
objections by the appellants.
th
30. While issuing notice on 24 April 2023, this Court passed
the following order:
“ Issue notice, returnable on 17.05.2023.
If the petitioners continue to be in service as
of today, their appointment shall not be
disturbed till they are replaced by the
regularly appointed candidates under the
selection process which is already adopted.
Even if the petitioners are replaced by the
regularly appointed candidates, the
appointment letter of the regularly appointed
candidates will state that their appointment
is subject to the orders passed in the Special
Leave Petition. ”
In view of this order, the appointments, if any, made by the
th
University under the subsequent advertisement dated 18
September 2020 on the posts held by the appellants were
explicitly made subject to the outcome of these petitions and
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 19 of 20
therefore, the appointees, if any, on the relevant posts cannot
claim any equity.
31. Therefore, by setting aside the impugned judgments, we
st nd
direct the 1 and 2 respondents to reinstate the appellants in
their respective posts based on their selection in December
2016. They shall be reinstated within three months from today.
Though the appellants shall be entitled to continuity in service
and other consequential benefits, they will not be entitled to
pay and allowances for the period for which they have not
worked.
32. The appeals are accordingly allowed on the above terms
with no orders as to costs. If any teachers have been appointed
in the posts held by the appellants, the University shall
consider whether they can be accommodated in the vacant
posts, if any, in accordance with the law.
……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
……………………..J.
(Pankaj Mithal)
New Delhi;
April 15, 2024.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 8333 of 2023 Page 20 of 20