Allahabad High Court: In three petitions challenging the appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as the first woman Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University (‘AMU’), on the ground that her husband, Professor Mohd. Gulrez, had presided over the meetings of the Executive Council and University Court which recommended her name, the Division Bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra* and Donadi Ramesh, JJ. noted that Professor Khatoon’s qualifications were never in doubt and emphasised her prior service as Principal of the Women’s College of AMU. It observed that her final selection as Vice-Chancellor was made by the Visitor, who exercised independent discretion and against whom no allegations of bias were raised.
Accordingly, the Court held that her husband’s role in chairing the recommendatory meetings did not justify setting aside Professor Khatoon’s appointment. The Court upheld the Visitor’s discretion in making the appointment and found no merit in the petitioners’ challenge.
Background
On 2-04-2023, Professor Mansoor resigned. Subsequently, the University Registrar issued a communication on 4-04-2023, stating that under Statute 2(7) of the First Statutes, Professor Mohd. Gulrez would perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor until a new appointment was made. During his tenure as officiating Vice-Chancellor, his wife, Professor Naima Khatoon, was appointed as Vice-Chancellor.
The process to appoint a new Vice-Chancellor commenced with an agenda circulated by the Registrar convening a special meeting of the Executive Council to recommend five candidates to the University Court. Thirty-three recommendations were received, and twenty names were formally nominated.
Voting was conducted by secret ballot. Of the 20 Executive Council members, 19 voted (excluding Professor Naima Khatoon, being a candidate). Each member cast five votes, totaling 95 votes. Professor Faizan Mustafa received 9 votes; Professors Naima Khatoon and Qayyum Husain received 8 votes each. Five other candidates received 7 votes each.
As only three candidates qualified based on vote count, a second round of voting was held to select two additional candidates from among those who had received 7 votes. Professors Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani and Furqan Qamar were selected, completing the panel of five.
The University Court subsequently voted on these names. Professor Rabbani secured 61 votes; Professors Faizan Mustafa and Naima Khatoon received 50 votes each, while two others received 47 votes. The Court forwarded the top three names—Professors Rabbani, Mustafa, and Khatoon to the Visitor.
On 22-04-2024, the Visitor of the University (the President of India), exercising powers under Clause 2(1) of the Statutes, appointed Professor Naima Khatoon as Vice-Chancellor. The Ministry of Education issued the formal communication, which was subsequently challenged.
The petitioners had challenged the selection and appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon, arguing that her husband, Professor Mohd. Gulrez, acting as Vice-Chancellor, presided over key meetings of the Executive Council and University Court where her appointment was recommended. They contended that this situation goes beyond a mere likelihood of bias, alleging that the proceedings were manipulated to secure her appointment.
Issues, Analysis and Decision
Whether shortlisting of candidates for their recommendation to visitor by the Executive Council and then the Court involves process of selection or election.
Referring to the statutory scheme governing the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, the Court observed that the appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University is governed by the provisions of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. The parties were ad idem on this aspect. Accordingly, it was deemed appropriate to examine the relevant provisions of the Act of 1920, along with the Regulations framed thereunder, insofar as they pertain to the appointment process of the Vice-Chancellor.
The Court noted that in cases where an officer was to be appointed and not elected, the Statute prescribed the manner of appointment. Apart from the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor was to be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor. Here too, the decision of the Executive Council had to be taken by majority, as per Regulation 8 of the regulations governing the Executive Council’s proceedings. Similarly, the Registrar was appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of a Selection Committee, with the final decision also required to be based on a majority vote. In situations where there was no unanimity, casting of votes became necessary to determine the majority view.
Regarding the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, the Court noted that the process began with the submission of applications along with biodata, which were to be considered and recommended by the Executive Council to the Court. In the present case, 33 individuals either applied or were recommended for consideration. Out of these, the Executive Council found 20 nominations to be valid, and from them, five candidates were shortlisted through majority voting and recommended to the Court. Subsequently, the Court shortlisted three candidates out of the five, again based on the votes cast by its members to determine the majority view. These three names were then forwarded to the Visitor, who appointed Professor Naima Khatoon as Vice-Chancellor.
The Court observed that the typical attributes of an election were distinct from those of a selection process. In an election, the voters (or constituency) chose a representative who would espouse their interests, and the candidate could also exercise the right to vote. Voters in such a process typically supported the candidate who would best promote their interests, making objective merit a secondary consideration. In contrast, when votes were cast in a selection process, as in the present case, the voters were expected to choose the most meritorious candidates based on qualifications and suitability, rather than personal or group interests.
In the present matter, the members of the Executive Council were expected to shortlist five candidates from those available for recommendation to the University Court. Although the shortlisting involved casting of votes, the Court clarified that the strict principles of an electoral process did not apply. Instead, the votes were meant to reflect a merit-based selection, with the primary focus on the qualifications and competence of the candidates rather than representational interest.
The Court explained that the selection process for the post of Vice-Chancellor was essentially divided into two parts. The first involved the recommendation of candidates by the Executive Council and the University Court to the Visitor, while the second part pertained to the Visitor’s consideration of those recommendations. It was clarified that the Visitor was not bound by the recommendations made by the Executive Council or the University Court. In line with Statute 2, the Visitor had full discretion to reject the recommended names and could call for a fresh panel of recommendations if deemed necessary. According to the statutory scheme, the Visitor was to consider appointing the Vice-Chancellor from a panel of three candidates recommended by the Court, selected from an initial panel of five names submitted by the Executive Council. Hence, the appointment could not be classified as an election.
The Court emphasised that while voting was used during the recommendation stages to determine the majority view within the Executive Council and the Court, this did not convert the selection process into an electoral one. The use of voting was merely a procedural step in ascertaining consensus, not an election in the traditional sense.
Whether the shortlisting of five names by the Executive Council based upon the cast of votes is vitiated on account of any manipulation.
Taking note of the original records related to the shortlisting of candidates by the Executive Council, the Court found that only 95 votes were cast, and the allegation that 99 votes were cast was not supported by the official records.
The Court observed that the petitioners’ claim of 99 votes being cast was based solely on newspaper reports, which had listed the number of votes received by each candidate. When totaled, those figures added up to 99, leading to the claim of irregularity. However, the Court clarified that only 19 members were present in the Executive Council meeting and since each member was entitled to cast five votes, the maximum number of valid votes could only be 95. Therefore, the claim of excess votes being cast was unfounded.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ objection, noting that it was based solely on a newspaper report, as newspaper reports are in the nature of hearsay evidence, and in the absence of corroborative or cogent proof, such claims could not be accepted as valid evidence.
The Court noted that it was undisputed that Professor Faizan Mustafa secured 9 votes in the Executive Council meeting, while Professors Naima Khatoon and Qayyum Husain each obtained 8 votes. Additionally, five candidates received 7 votes. As a result, the three candidates with the highest number of votes — Professor Faizan Mustafa, Professor Naima Khatoon, and Professor Qayyum Husain were automatically shortlisted. However, since two more candidates were required to complete the panel of five, a second poll was conducted among the five candidates who had received seven votes each.
Taking note of the original records of the second poll, held on the same date, the Court rejected the petitioners’ objection — that the election schedule did not mention a second poll.
While the petitioners raised doubts about the integrity of the Executive Council’s proceedings, the Court found no cogent material to support these allegations. Therefore, the Court found no substance in the accusation that the shortlisting process had been manipulated.
Whether the concept of likelihood of bias would be attracted in the facts of the present case due to active participation of Professor Gulrez in the shortlisting of candidates by the Executive Council and the University Court, and its effect if it is found so.
The Court observed that, in the case of an appointment based on selection, the concept of bias was clearly applicable. It noted that although the quorum of the Executive Council was 15, a total of 19 members had been present and participated in the proceedings. The Court stated that there would have been no difficulty if Professor Gulrez Ahmad had chosen to abstain from presiding over the meeting and allowed the next person in command, as per the statute, to take the chair. This alternative approach would have eliminated any apprehension of bias in the recommendation process.
However, the Court concluded that the chairing and participation of Professor Gulrez in the proceedings was improper. It further issued a directive to the University to ensure that, going forward, no spouse or close family member of any individual involved in the proceedings shall be permitted to preside or participate in any crucial meeting concerning that family member.
Whether the proceedings of Executive Council or the University Court in shortlisting Professor Naima Khatoon and recommending her name to the Visitor is vitiated on account of participation of Professor Gulrez Ahmad
The Court highlighted that the doctrine of bias is strictly applied in judicial proceedings or tribunals tasked with adjudication. It noted that in selection proceedings, members of the selection committee assess the merits of candidates for a post, and thus the concept of bias applies. Even in a multi-member selection committee, if a member is closely related to a candidate, bias may arise.
The appointment process for the Vice-Chancellor required the Executive Council to recommend five names to the University Court, which then shortlisted three names for the Visitor. The Visitor has the discretion to not accept any recommendations and call for fresh ones, which reposes trust in the Visitor’s decision.
The Court acknowledged that while the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was by selection and not election, the role of the Executive Council and University Court was recommendatory, and their decisions were based on majority votes. Given the Visitor’s discretion, the concept of bias did not apply in this case since the Visitor had the final say on the selection.
Though the Court opined that Professor Gulrez Ahmad should not have presided over the meetings of the Executive Council and University Court, it concluded that his participation did not vitiate the selection process. The recommendatory role of the bodies and the Visitor’s authority to make the final decision meant that the proceedings were not impacted by Professor Gulrez’s involvement. Furthermore, the change of a member of the Executive Council shortly before the meeting was not deemed significant.
The Court noted that Professor Naima Khatoon undisputedly met the qualifications for the post of Vice-Chancellor. It was pointed out that, in the history of the University spanning over a century, no woman had ever been appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The appointment of a woman to this prestigious role sent a powerful message regarding the promotion of women’s rights, aligning with constitutional objectives.
The Court said that the qualifications of Professor Naima Khatoon were never in question, and her final selection as Vice-Chancellor was made by the Visitor, against whom no bias was alleged. Professor Khatoon’s credentials, including her prior position as the Principal of the University’s Women’s College, were highlighted. The Court reasoned that her husband’s role in presiding over the meetings that recommended her name did not justify interference with her appointment.
For these reasons, the Court held that the discretion exercised by the Visitor in appointing Professor Naima Khatoon as Vice-Chancellor from a panel of three names recommended by the University Court was valid and thus merited no interference.
[Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg v Union of India, WRIT – A No. 19427 of 2023, decided on 17-05-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner:- Kunal Shah, Sankalp Narain, Sr. Advocate, Syed Shahnawaz Shah, Udayan Nandan, Arvind Srivastava, Saquib Mukhtar
Counsel for Respondent:- A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Shyamal Narain, Siddharth Khare, Siddharth Nandan, Syed Imran Ibrahim, Syed Shahnawaz Shah, Vivek Kumar Singh, A.S.G.I., Abrar Ahmad, Pratik Chandra, Udayan Nandan
