The Delhi High Court (HC) today, Wednesday, May 22, invalidated Prof Eqbal Hussain's appointment as Pro-Vice-Chancellor and then Officiating Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, ruling that the appointments were not made per the applicable statute.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, on the other hand, instructed that a new appointment to the position of Officiating Vice-Chancellor (VC) be made within one week to ensure that the university's academic and administrative machinery is not hampered or completely halted, PTI reports.
The court also directed the Visitor, India's President, to initiate the process of appointing a regular VC in the meantime.
"A writ of Quo Warranto is issued quashing the appointment of respondent no.2 (Hussain) at the first instance as Pro Vice-Chancellor by Office Order dated 14.09.2023 and as Officiating Vice Chancellor by Office Order dated 12.11.2023. Since respondent no.2 has not been appointed in terms of the Statute, his continuation in the office of Vice Chancellor as the Officiating Vice Chancellor cannot be permitted further," ordered the court while dealing with petitions by Md Shami Ahmad Ansari and others.
"The appointment of the VC (Officiating)/ Administrator (Temporary) shall be done within a period of 1 week from the date of receipt of the present order. The initiation of appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor on regular basis shall commence not later than two weeks of the appointment of Vice Chancellor (Officiating)/ Administrator (Temporary) and be completed within 30 days thereafter," the court said.
What happened
On September 14, 2023, then-VC Prof Najma Akhtar appointed Hussain as Pro VC of Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI).
Following Akhtar's superannuation on November 12, 2023, the Office of the Registrar made another notification about Hussain taking over as Officiating VC.
The petitioners alleged that both appointments violated the Jamia Millia Islamia Act (JMI Act) and University Grants Commission (UGC) norms.
The court remarked that, according to the procedure outlined in the laws regulating JMI, Hussain's name, as a suggested candidate of the then-VC for the Pro VC position, should have been presented to the Executive Council for approval before his appointment.
It went on to say that if there was a disagreement, the subject had to be submitted to the Visitor, who may either overturn the council's decision or return the case to the VC and recommend a new name.
"It would yet again be the EC (Executive Council) which alone would have the jurisdiction to appoint the fresh incumbent, if the need so arises. Having regard to the above analysis and findings on facts, it is crystal clear that the mandate of Statute 4 of the Statutes of the University was not followed," it stated.
After determining that the initial appointment as Pro-VC was contradictory to and in violation of the legislation, the court found that Hussain's subsequent appointment as officiating VC was equally invalid.
The court stated that no "emergent situation" existed at the time of Hussain's appointment as the officiating VC to demonstrate compliance with the statute because the fact that the former VC was about to demit office was known to all and sundry, and the statute allows the senior-most professor, who is one of the petitioners, to be appointed as the Officiating VC.
