SC directs JMIU to reinstate and regularize teachers

New Delhi, April 16, 2024 : The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Jamia Millia Islamia University (JMIU) to reinstate the teachers, who were denied regularization by the University even after UGC’s letter directing to
regularize them. The UGC had directed that the teachers who were selected through a regular selection
process and possessed the required qualifications should be made permanent. A Bench Comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal while observing that the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations are binding on the Universities, directed Jamia Milia Islamia University to reinstate the teachers permanently.
These teachers were denied regularization by the University even after UGC’s letter to the University directing regularization of the teachers who were selected through a regular selection process and possessed the required qualifications. The Supreme Court said, “The appellants were appointed after undergoing a regular selection
process and they possess relevant qualifications as per the norms of UGC. The JMIU should have allowed them to continue in the post with the regular establishment of the University instead of adopting the fresh selection procedure.” The Court held that the action of the University to start a fresh selection process and not consider them to continue as permanent teachers is unjust, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The appellants/teachers claimed appointment permanently under the letter sent by UGC to the Jamia stating 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. However, the University didn’t regularize them and instead rolled out a fresh selection procedure.After the Delhi High Court refused to grant any relief to the aggrieved teachers, the
appellants/teachers approached the Supreme Court.The University contended that the letter by the UGC to treat the teachers as regular appointed employees does not have a binding effect on the university and the appellants/teachers are not entitled to be regularized, the University said. Justice Abhay S Oka however rejected such contention and highlighted the importance of the position of UGC while placing reliance on the case of Kalyani Mathivanan v K V Jeyaraj and others, in which the court observed as follows: “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, may withhold the grants to the university made out of the fund of the Commission.” The Court also cited the Supreme Court judgement in Kalyani Mathivanan, in which the court noted that “It is true that the letter dated June 25, 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.” The Apex Court held that appellants having been appointed after undergoing a regular selection process and possessing relevant qualifications as per the norms of UGC, should have been continued on the posts merged with the regular establishment of the University instead of adopting the fresh selection procedure.