The High Commissioner’s Panel in Delhi rejects the appeal against the appointment of Dr. Najma Akhtar as Vice President of the Jordan Media Institute

NEW DELHI, May 18 (IANS) — The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal against the single-judge court order upholding the appointment of Dr Najma Akhtar as Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia University.

A panel of Justices Rajeev Shakir and Talwant Singh issued the order, upholding the earlier ruling and dismissing the appeal filed by Mohammed Ehtesham-ul-Haq, an alumnus of the university.

An appeal by Ehtesham-ul-Haq challenged the decision of a single judge who had previously refused his argument against the appointment of Dr. Akhtar. The divisional commission carefully considered the arguments put forward by both parties before reaching its decision.

A copy of the detailed order is pending.

Haq claimed that Akhtar’s appointment was completely illegal, as the search committee responsible for selecting the vice-chancellor was riddled with irregularities.

The appellant asserted that the process leading to the appointment of Dr. Akhtar as Vice-Chancellor of the University was a “deceptive exercise of authority”.

It was also alleged that the process flagrantly violated the Islamic University Act 1988, in conjunction with Clause 7.3.0 of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for the Appointment of Teachers and Other Teaching Personnel in Universities and Colleges and Measures for Maintaining Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, as is mentioned.

However, in a ruling issued on March 5, 2021, the Single Judge Panel determined that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any overt violation of UGC regulations or the Media Institute Act in the appointment process.

The court then decided that Akhtar’s appointment was valid.

I must highlight the position of the law that the court cannot appeal the decision made by the search committee. Instead, the scope is limited to judicial review of the decision where the court is concerned only with whether the incumbent possesses the qualifications for the appointment and the manner in which the appointment was made or whether the procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable,” the order said.

– Jans

sound / vd