- The Delhi High Court stated that Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) could not use the court as a shield to obtain funding from the University Grants Commission (UGC) in response to the university's request that the commission provide money for the Sarojini Naidu Centre for Women Studies.
- The court made its oral observation while deliberating a request made by the university in a proceeding involving a professor who serves as the center's head and requests payment of her salary.
- Jamia submitted the application, claiming that the professor's salary could not be paid due to a lack of funding from the UGC's "Development of Women Studies in Indian Universities" programme or from the regular budget. Jamia asked the commission to release the grant to the centre and pay the remaining deficit balance of Rs. 6 crore from the programme.
- The high court, however, questioned why the concerned teacher wasn't paid although all other officers, such as the vice chancellor and registrar of the university, were.
- "You recoup the money by selling your properties. You cannot use the legal system as a cover to obtain funding from UGC. Request that the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor (VC) forgo their salaries in order to compensate this teacher. "You have the funds to pay the salaries of the other officers, but you want our order to the UGC for her.
- The poor instructor isn't getting paid, but the vice chancellor and the registrar are, according to a bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad.
- According to JMI Standing Counsel Pritish Sabharwal, the centre is owned by the UGC and is operated by the university in accordance with UGC policy.
- He said that the UGC had written to the university requesting that the centre be merged, not the teaching positions, and that the UGC, which has ceased issuing funding, must provide the money for teacher salaries.
- The bench noted that the institution had previously stated that it would pay the professor all due sums during the course of the day.
- The court acknowledged the promise and ordered that the professor would eventually continue to receive her income on a monthly basis.
- When the court specifically asked at the hearing on July 6 if the vice chancellor, registrar, and other teachers were paid, the university's attorney fairly responded in the positive.
- The judge rejected the plea, stating that "The sole purpose of this motion is to go around the prior ruling, which was a consent order. We see no justification for considering the application. It is turned down."
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
