Professor Eqbal Hussain moves Delhi HC challenging the order invalidating his appointment as Jamia VC judge | Latest India News

In New Delhi, Professor Eqbal Hussain approached the Delhi High Court challenging a single judge’s order invalidating his appointment as vice-chancellor and then acting vice-chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia.

Hussain’s appeal is scheduled to be heard on Monday before a division bench comprising Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee.

On May 22, a single judge of the Supreme Court quashed Hussain’s appointment as pro-vice chancellor and then as acting VC of Jamia, holding that the appointment was not made in accordance with the relevant statute.

However, he directed to ensure that the academic and administrative machinery of the university does not suffer or come to a complete halt and that the new appointment as VC takes place within a week.

The court also asked the ‘Visitor’, who is the President of India, to order the initiation of the process of appointing a permanent VC in the meantime.

“An order of Quo Warranto was issued quashing the appointment of respondent No. 2 in the first instance as Vice-Chancellor vide order dated September 14, 2023 and as Acting Vice-Chancellor vide order dated November 12, 2023.

“Since respondent No. 2 has not been appointed in accordance with the Statute, he cannot be allowed to continue to hold the office of Vice-Chancellor as Acting Vice-Chancellor,” the court ordered while hearing the petitions of Mr. Shami Ahmad Ansari and others.

“The appointment of the VC/Administrator will take place within 1 week from the date of receipt of this order. Regular appointments to the position of Vice-Chancellor will commence no later than two weeks after the appointment of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor/Administrator and be completed within 30 days,” it said.

On September 14, 2023, the then VC Professor Najma Akhtar appointed Hussain as Pro VC of Jamia Millia Islamia. Subsequently, after Akhtar’s retirement on November 12, 2023, the registrar’s office issued another notification for Hussain to assume duties as VC.

The petitioners alleged that both the appointments were made in violation of the provisions of the JMI Act and regulations issued by the UGC.

The court observed that as per the procedure prescribed in the rules governing JMI, Hussain’s name, as the candidate recommended by the then VC for the post of Pro VC, should have been presented to the Executive Council for approval before his appointment.

He added that in case of any difference of opinion, the matter should be referred to the Visitor to overturn the council’s decision or refer the matter back to the VC to recommend a new name.

“Once again, the European Commission would have the power to appoint a new incumbent if necessary. Given the above analysis and factual findings, it is abundantly clear that the mandate contained in Art. 4 of the University Statute were not complied with,” the court said.

Holding that the initial appointment as pro VC was contrary to the statute and in violation thereof, the court concluded that the subsequent appointment of Hussain as acting VC was also not valid.

The court found that at the time of Hussain’s appointment as acting VC, no “emergency situation” existed that could demonstrate compliance with the statute because the fact that the former VC intended to resign from the post was common knowledge and the statute stipulates that the most senior professor , who is one of the petitioners, may be appointed as acting VC.

This article was generated from an automated feed from a news agency, without any modifications to the text.