On Thursday, May 18, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against its single-judge order which had upheld the appointment of Dr Najma Akhtar as the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the Delhi-based varsity, Jamia Millia Islamia.
The May 18 order was given by a division bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh. The appeal which was rejected was filed by a former student of the university, M Ehtesham-ul-Haq, stated a report by IANS.
Why was the appeal filed?
Ehtesham-ul-Haq's appeal contested the order of the single judge who had rejected his plea against the appointment of Dr Najma Akhtar before. This division bench considered both sides of the arguments before giving its decision. The detailed order is awaited.
Why was the appeal filed?
It was the claim of M Ehtesham-ul-Haq that Dr Akhtar's appointment was completely illegal. This is because, as per Haq, the search committee which was appointed to select the VC itself was riddled with irregularities. He called the appointment process a "deceptive exercise of power".
The process was also alleged to have flagrantly violated the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988, in conjunction 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 argued.
But in a ruling, which was issued on March 5, 2021, it was determined that Haq did not succeed in demonstrating any explicit violation of the UGC Regulations or the JMI Act in the appointment process. This was stated by the single-judge bench.
The court had then held that the appointment of Akhtar was deemed valid.
"I must highlight the position of law that court cannot 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," the order had said.
