MOHD. RAMZAN Vs. JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra-court appeal preferred along with an application for condonation of delay of 454 days in filing the same, impugns the order dated 20.07.2011 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.604/1995 preferred by the appellants. The three appellants, who were in or about the year 1990 appointed as Lecturers on ad-hoc basis in the respondent University and whose ad-hoc appointment was extended from time to time and who had so completed almost four and a half years, had filed the said writ petition seeking two-fold reliefs. Firstly, of regularization. Secondly, it was pleaded that the selection for filling up the vacancies in the posts conducted in the year 1995 and in which the appellants were not selected, was vitiated; quashing thereof was claimed.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge, relying on Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 has held the appellants to be not entitled to the relief of regularization. No arguments have been addressed by the counsel for the appellants on the said count. Rather the counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Single Judge treated the writ petition as primarily for the relief of regularization and has not given due consideration to the alternate relief claimed by the appellants impugning the selection process of the year 1995. Need therefore is not felt to discuss in this appeal, the said aspect.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellants has confined his arguments to the validity of the delegation of the powers of the Academic Council to the Vice Chancellor, for nominating the experts to the Selection Committee. It is argued that no valid resolution of the Academic Council so delegating the powers to the Vice Chancellor has been found. Rather, out of the 454 days delay in filing the appeal, the delay of 119 days is attributed to attempts made by the appellants through the medium of Right to Information Act, 2005 for finding the said resolution. The delay of further 43 days is attributed to "no knowledge of the impugned judgment having been pronounced" and of the remaining 221 days in procuring information unofficially and which had otherwise been refused by the respondent University through proper channels.