'UGC Regulations Binding On Universities' : Supreme Court Directs Regularization Of Teachers At Jamia Milia Islamia

Observing that the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations are binding on the Universities, the Supreme Court on Monday (April 15) directed the reinstatement of the teachers at Jamia Milia Islamia (“University”) on a permanent basis who were denied regularization by the University even after UGC's letter to University directing regularization of the teachers who were selected through a regular selection process and possessed required qualifications.

“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 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 the merger.”, the Bench Comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal said.

The appellants/teachers claimed appointment on a permanent basis pursuant to 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 a setback from the Delhi High Court, the appellants/teachers approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the University contended that the appellants are not entitled to be regularized as the UGC letter permitting 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 does not have a binding effect on the University.

Rejecting such contention, the Judgment authored by Justice Abhay S Oka highlighted the importance of the position of UGC while placing reliance on the case of Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and others, where in para 27 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, UGC may withhold the grants to the university made out of the fund of the Commission.”

Applying the ratio of Kalyani Mathivanan, the court in the present case noted that "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."

Ultimately, the court opined 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.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were directed to be reinstated within three months.

The clarified that "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."

Case Title: MEHER FATIMA HUSSAIN VERSUS JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA & ORS. 

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 303

Click here to read/download the judgment