NAJMA SIDDIQUI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises important questions of law pertaining to the seniority of University Professors coming from different source. Questions involved are (1) whether petitioners, who were directly appointed as Professors in the Department of Education, by open selection, for the projects under the Centrally sponsored scheme are not the employees of University of Delhi, hence have no locus standi to challenge the appointment of respondent No.2. (2) Whether the seniority of the professors appointed under the Merit Promotion Scheme can be at par with the Professors appointed against regular cadre in the University, alternatively can merit promotion be reckoned at par for seniority purposes with persons selected in open selection as Professors? (3) Whether University can give retrospective seniority or deemed seniority under its Act, rules, Statute and Ordinance.

(2.) So far as the question of locus standi is concerned, respondent's argument has been that the petitioners were not appointed by the University of Delhi for its Education Department. They were in fact appointed by Delhi State Government for its project sponsored by the Central Government. This was made clear in the advertisement in response to which petitioners applied. This fact finds mention in their appointment letters also. It was specifically pointed out mentioned that they were appointed as Professors for a specific project. The petitioner No.1 was appointed in a project known as Institute for Advance Studies in Education (in short IASE). The petitioner No.2 was appointed for a project known as Maulana Azad Centre for Elementary and Social Education (in short MACESE). IASE and MACESE schemes are the projects sponsored by the Central Government. These are run by the Delhi Government in the Department of Education. Employees of these project are not the employees of University of Delhi. Being the employees of the project petitioners cannot claim seniority with the respondent No.2 who was appointed in the Department of Education of University of Delhi. The University appoints teachers. Those who are appointed by the University are paid by the University. The petitioners being not the employees of the University are not paid their salary by the University. Hence have no locus standi to challenge the action of the University in treating respondent No.2 as senior to petitioners.

(3.) Mr.Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioners refuted these averments, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners were appointed to the posts created at the instance of the Delhi University. These posts were sanctioned by the Central Government for the University hence formed part of the University of Delhi. University of Delhi got these posts created by following regular procedure. These posts were created because of the Resolution of the Academic and Executive Council's of the University of Delhi. Attention was drawn to the Office order No.132 of the University dated 13th November, 1990. Reading of which shows that these posts on which petitioners were selected were created by the Resolution of the Academic Council and Executive Council. Pursuance to that Resolution an advertisement was issued by the University in the Newspaper thereby inviting applications for the posts of Readers and Professors. In response to that advertisement the petitioners applied for the posts of Professors. They were selected by the Selection Committee constituted by the University of Delhi as per the University Statute and rules. Therefore, even though the petitioners were appointed for a project yet they remained employees of the University because their appointment was made by the University for the University and their salaries have also been paid by the University.