Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed three civil appeals filed by teachers of Jamia Millia Islamia University who were appointed on tenure posts in the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women Studies. The appellants, Meher Fatima Hussain, Sabiha Hussain, and Suraiya Tabassum, were appointed pursuant to an advertisement dated 12th July 2016 for academic posts in the Centre. Their letters of appointment specified that the posts were tenure posts till the XII Plan period or till the scheme lasts. The University sought and obtained approval from the UGC to merge the posts of the Centre with the regular establishment. However, the appellants' services were not regularised, and they were issued show cause notices. They filed writ petitions which were dismissed by a Single Judge, and their Letters Patent Appeals were also dismissed by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court held that the appointments were made on a fixed tenure basis, and the merger of posts with the regular establishment did not automatically convert the tenure appointments into permanent ones. The Court distinguished the case from irregular appointments, noting that the appellants had accepted the appointment on the terms offered. The Court also held that the principle in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi regarding regularisation of irregular appointments did not apply as the appointments were not irregular but were tenure appointments. The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Tenure Appointment - Merger of Posts - The appellants were appointed on tenure posts till the XII Plan period or till the scheme lasts in Sarojini Naidu Centre. The UGC permitted merger of the posts with the regular establishment, but the Court held that such merger does not automatically convert the tenure appointments into permanent appointments. The appellants' appointments were not irregular but were made on a fixed tenure basis, and they cannot claim regularisation beyond the tenure. (Paras 15-20) B) Service Law - Regularisation - Uma Devi Principle - The principle in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi that regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right for irregular appointments applies. However, the Court distinguished that the present appointments were not irregular but were tenure appointments. The Court held that the appellants cannot seek regularisation as their appointments were co-terminus with the scheme. (Paras 15-20) C) Service Law - Appointment - Tenure Post - The letters of appointment clearly stated that the posts were tenure posts till the XII Plan period or till the scheme lasts. The Court held that the appellants accepted the appointment on those terms and cannot later claim permanency. The merger of posts does not alter the nature of their appointment. (Paras 15-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants, who were appointed on tenure posts in a university centre, are entitled to regularisation of their services after the merger of the posts with the regular establishment of the university.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all three civil appeals, upholding the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the appellants' appointments were on tenure basis and they cannot claim regularisation. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Regularisation of tenure appointments
- Merger of posts with regular establishment
- Distinction between irregular and illegal appointments
- Applicability of Uma Devi principle
