Meher Fatima Hussain vs. Jamia Milia Islamia
Background
Three teachers (Meher Fatima Hussain, Sabiha Hussain, and Suraiya Tabassum) had been working at Jamia Millia Islamia's Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women Studies on tenure posts created under a UGC-funded scheme. After the UGC approved merging these tenure posts into the University's regular establishment (since the teachers had been appointed through a proper selection process), the University instead issued show-cause notices and began a fresh selection process, effectively pushing them out. Their challenge before the Delhi High Court's Single Judge and then a Division Bench (Letters Patent Appeal) both failed, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that all three appellants had been appointed via a regular, University Statute-compliant selection process and possessed the required UGC qualifications, a fact the University itself had certified in writing to the UGC. The UGC's letters had made clear that properly selected teachers "may be merged" into the regular establishment, and the Court found no justification for the University to instead start a fresh recruitment. It held the University's action arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (equality before law), set aside the High Court's judgments, and directed reinstatement of all three teachers within three months with continuity of service, though without back pay for the period they were out of work. The Court left open the University's right to still pursue a pending disciplinary inquiry against them.
Lesson Learnt
When a government-funded academic post is properly filled through a valid selection process and the funding body (like the UGC) later approves merging it into a permanent establishment, the employer cannot arbitrarily discard the incumbent and restart selection, doing so violates the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.