Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. The Respondents have further stated in the reply that an advertisement was issued on 12.07.2016 whereby a post of Professor/ Director was advertised, which was a plan based post or till the end of the scheme in the Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2444-DB WSC and it was categorically mentioned that it is a plan based post and it is being temporarily filled. Only three applications were received including that the of the present Appellant. As per the procedure, a Screening Committee was constituted and the Screening Committee held a meeting on 28.10.2016 and the Committee recommended only two candidates to be interviewed for the post of Professor/ Director. The Petitioner was also one of the candidates. The Advertisement in question dated 12.07.2016 also included the post of Associate Professor. The interviews for the post of Professors and Associate Professors took place on 30.11.2016 and the Selection Committee was constituted comprising of 9 members including the Petitioner as she was the ad hoc Director of WSC, meaning thereby, the Petitioner was one of the members of the Selection Committee. The Petitioner being a member of the selection committee, on 30.11.2016, participated in the process of selection for the post of Associate Professor and for the post of Professor/ Director, the same selection committee on the same day selected the Petitioner and at the time of the Petitioner's interview 8 members were present in the selection committee as Petitioner himself was one of the members of the selection committee. The Respondents have stated that the process of selection was not comprehensive and as it was a tenure based post, only three persons submitted their applications and only two persons including the Petitioner were called for the interview.

79. A common rejoinder to the replies of the petitioners have been filed by the Jamia Millia Islamia to state that the stand of the petitioners that regularisation of Centre / Posts is unaffected, whether the Centre was created under the UGC Scheme or on its own accord. It is stated that the distinction between the plan / non plan and scheme / non scheme goes to the very heart of the matter and is the most crucial aspect to be settled. According to the University, the Centres enumerated under Statute 22(A) of the University Statutes are permanent Centres of the University and have always been made part of the Regular Establishment of the University subsequently. It is clarified that whenever any post within a Centre / Department / Faculty is proposed to be established by the University, it is after due approval of UGC with its nomenclature as "Post / Centre" under a particular plan during which it had been Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2444-DB created, however that does not mean that such Post / Centre is established in pursuance of UGC Scheme as in the case of a present batch of petitions. In other words, since the UGC five- year plan was envisioned for a period of five years and budget allocation was made at the beginning of that plan, naturally any post or permanent Centre that the University may create in the duration of such plan would be included as part of the Regular Establishment only in the next five-year plan. The University has given an example, inasmuch as if the University were to decide in the year 2014 that there is need for bringing of additional posts of Assistant Professor in a particular faculty in such circumstances, the XIIth plan having commenced in 2012, which did not account for these additional posts under the General Development Assistance and therefore from 2014 till 2017 funding on those additional posts would have to be given by the UGC under plan. However, when the XIIth Plan ends and the next begins, the said additional posts would automatically be treated as Non-plan and therefore, part of Regular Establishment of the University. Similar is the case with Centres of the University except those Centres which are established / created in pursuance of particular UGC Scheme / Project, since such Centres cannot be termed per se as the Centres of the University but rather, co-terminus with specific Scheme of the UGC in that regard. With regard to all the Centres named by the petitioners, the following is stated; (i) UGC and HRD Centre continues to run under a Scheme of UGC and is receiving specific grant-in-aid from the UGC; (ii) Academy of Professional Development of Urdu medium teachers though initially started under the scheme of the UGC such scheme having been discontinued by the UGC, the said University continues, the Academy for promotion of Urdu language however, the nature of appointment of incumbents therein continues to be purely temporary; (iii) Centre for Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences; Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Basic Sciences; Centre for North- East Studies and Policy Research; Department of Tourism; Hotel; Hospitality and Heritage Studies; Faculty of Dentistry;

38. The appointment of the Appellant was placed before Executive Council of the University on 10.03.2017 and the Executive Council approved the Appellant's appointment which was a tenure based appointment under XIIth Plan. It is true that the University vide letter dated 27.04.2017 and 31.07.2018 requested the UGC to merge the post of faculty in the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women Studies into the non-plan post sanctioned by the UGC and the UGC vide its notice dated 26.03.2019 informed the public at large that the scheme will continue up to 31.03.2020. The letter of the UGC dated 26.03.2019 is reproduced as under:

71. In the Jamia Milia Islamia University, there is no past practice of regularizing the incumbents upon merger from plan to non-plan posts and a post has to be filled up after issuing an All India level advertisement in case plan post is converted into a non-plan post.

72. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition preferred by the present Appellant Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2444-DB and all other identically placed persons. The Appellants were appointees under the scheme. The scheme was for a limited period and after conversion of plan post to non-plan post, the posts are to be filled up by issuing an All India advertisement and, therefore, as the Appellants do not have any vested right of regularization, no case for interference is made out in the matter.