Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
5.03.2016 (Dr. Subhash Kanti Roy vs Visva Bharati University & Ors.) on 15 March, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
W. P. 29221 (W) OF 2014
5.03.2016 (Dr. Subhash Kanti Roy -vs- Visva Bharati University & Ors.)
ag
Sl. No.43
Court no.13
Mr. Debasish Banerjee - for the Petitioner
Mr. Shrenik Singhvi
Mr. Shubradip Roy - for the University
Affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply filed today be kept with the record.
The petitioner challenges the appointment given to the respondent no. 5.
According to the petitioner, there is an element of biasness creeping in the selection process since the selection committee was composed of at least two members who were the research guides of the respondent no. 5.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, the initial recruitment process had commenced by the advertisement no. 9/2013. In such advertisement the requirement of specialisation in a particular field was not specified. It was sought to be introduced by an addendum dated January 3, 2014.
It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, in the event the research papers submitted by him and his teaching experience were taken into consideration, he should have been awarded better marks than what has been shown in the tabulation sheet being annexure 'P1' to the affidavit-in-opposition of the University. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 does not have desirable qualification.
The University authorities are represented. It is submitted on their behalf that, the petitioner having participated in the selection process should not be allowed to challenge the same. There were twelve candidates. The petitioner did not obtain the 2 next highest mark even if one has to ignore the marks given to the respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 5 was given the appointment since he had scored the highest.
I have considered the rival contention of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The petitioner herein had participated in the selection process commenced by the advertisement bearing no. 9/2013. The University authorities had introduced the desirable qualification by addendum to that advertisement on January 3, 2014. The petitioner had participated in the selection process subsequent thereto unconditionally.
The contention of the petitioner that the desirable qualification was introduced to favour the respondent no. 5 remains unsubstantiated. There were twelve participants. It is inconceivable that a desirable qualification was introduced to favour one candidate when the authorities would not be in the know of the nature and the number of the candidates participating in the selection process.
The contention of biasness sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner is also not acceptable. The candidates were awarded marks on academic record and research performance and on assessment of domain knowledge and technical skill and interview performance. The petitioner before me has secured consistently less in all of the three heads in relation to other participating candidates including the respondent no. 5. The petitioner is not in the first five candidates out of 12 of the basis of the marks awarded in the selection process.
In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. W. P. No. 29221 (W) of 2014 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished on priority basis.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) 3