Delhi HC asks Centre, others to respond to plea challenging Jamia VC's appointment

The Delhi High Court on Monday asked Centre and others to file a response on a plea challenging the appointment of Najma Akhtar as the Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI).

Justice AK Chawla also asked Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), University Grants Commission (UGC), JMI, Akhtar and others to file a response on the plea and listed the matter for February for further hearing.

The petition was filed by Jamia Alumnus M Ehtesham-ul-Haque through his advocate Mobashshir Sarwar. In his plea, Haque sought to set aside the decision related to the appointment of Akhtar as JMI Vice-Chancellor.

The petitioner told the court that Akhtar was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor despite the fact that the CVC had initially denied the Vigilance Clearance Certificate to Akhtar.

 

He also told the court that CVC has stated for "not to consider Akhtar for any post-retirement assignment/ re-employment in the organisation's institutions/universities falling within the administrative control of MHRD."

"The office of Vice-Chancellor of a central university being a statutory post, all relevant factors have to be carefully considered before the appointment is made -- as the search committee failed to consider all factors, namely the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment', it is liable to be set aside," the plea said.

The petitioner alleged that the appointment of Akhtar was done through a tainted process and the consideration and recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor by the "purported" search committee "subject to vigilance clearance" was in itself irregular and illegal and vitiates the entire process.

"The decision of the CVC to revise its original decision whereby it has recommended stating not to consider Akhtar for any post-retirement assignment or re-employment in the organisations or universities falling within the administrative control of MHRD", and is completely without authority and jurisdiction, and is liable to be declared as a nullity and warrants a proper enquiry being conducted into the same.

The petitioner also said that the decision of the CVC to revise its original decision and that too at the instance of the MHRD, whose participation in the process was not contemplated by the Act and the statute or regulations is legally unsustainable.