Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Prasanta Kumar Dey vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 April, 2017
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
02.
24.04.2017.
Ct. No. 29.
F.B.
W.P. 13056 (W) of 2016
With
W.P. 13057 (W) of 2016
Dr. Prasanta Kumar Dey
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. N. C. Bihani,
Ms. Srijoni Chongdar
..... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee,
Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta
..... For the State.
Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal,
Ms. Bandana Das
..... For the College
Service Commission.
Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta
..... For the UGC.
_________
Mr. N. C. Bihani, Learned Counsel appears for the writ
petitioner. Mr. Bihani submits that in view of the two-fold prayers
in both the writ petitions namely, a prayer for being recognised to
the appropriate post after completion of the requisite years of
service and second, for granting permission to the petitioner to
appear for interview to the post of Principal, an Hon'ble Single
Bench vide its order dated 7th of November, 2016 in W.P. 13056 (W)
of 2016, was pleased to grant opportunity to the parties to
exchange affidavits.
2
By another order dated 21st of July, 2016 in W.P. 13057 (W)
of 2016, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection
procedure for the post of Principal of the Respondent/College in
issue with the rider that the Respondent/College in issue shall not publish the results of the selection without the leave of the Court.
Mr. Bihani today submits that in both the writ petitions the petitioners do not press the second of the two-fold prayers, i.e. for being allowed to participate in the selection procedure for the post of Principal.
However, in respect of the first prayer, which is for treating the petitioners as Associate Professors with effect from the date of completion of three years of service from their appointment as a Readers, Mr. Bihani submits that the final order of the Hon'ble Co- ordinate Bench dated 1st of March, 2016 in connected analogous matters has attained finality and also covers the first prayer of the present petitioners. Accordingly, Mr. Bihani prays for a parity of treatment.
The operative portion of the final order dated 1st of March, 2016, inter alia, reads as follows:-
"This interpretation allows the hardship Clause to remain in harmony with all other Clauses of the U.G.C. Regulation, 2000.
The clarification that the State Government had obtained from U.G.C. from time to time speaks uniformly that the U.G.C. Regulations 2000 have a hardship Clause. One has to take into account the hardship Clause while considering an individual case.3
The impugned memo dated March 31, 2015 has not taken into consideration the hardship Clause at all. The interpretation and the U.G.C. Regulation 2000 given in the impugned memo are contrary to the U.G.C. Regulation 2000. The same therefore cannot be sustained. The impugned memo dated March 31, 2015 is set aside.
In Mamata Mahanti (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a person cannot enforce negative equality. In the present case of the petitioners before me are not enforcing any negative equality. Their rights flow out of the U.G.C. Regulation 2000. On a proper construction the U.G.C. Regulation, 2000 impugned memo dated March 31, 2015 cannot be upheld.
Consequent to the setting aside of the impugned memo dated March 31, 2015, the authorities will consider the individual cases of the petitioners before me in accordance with law.
In such circumstances, seven writ petitions being W.P. 21949 (W) of 2015, W.P. 17856 (W) of 2015, W.P. 21950 (W) of 2015, W.P. 21951 (W) of 2015, W.P. 21939 (W) of 2015, W.P. 21940 (W) 2015 and W.P. 21941 (W) of 2015 are allowed without any order as to costs.
Consequent to the setting aside of the impugned memo dated March 31, 2015, the authorities will consider the individual cases of the petitioners before me in accordance with law."
On Behalf of the Respondent/West Bengal College Service Commission, Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, Learned Counsel appears.
4For the Respondent/University Grants Commission, Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Learned Counsel appears.
The State-respondents are represented by Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Learned Additional Government Pleader with Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta, Learned Counsel.
Having heard the parties and considering the fact that the order dated 1st of March, 2016 stands already complied with by the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal in respect of similarly circumstanced persons vide his Memo No. 561-UGC/4P-54UGC/09 (Pt), this Court is of the view that the writ petitions need not be kept pending further. Accordingly, the present petitioners shall stand covered by the directions of the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench dated 1st of March, 2016 (supra) and, the competent State authorities shall be entitled to take steps in the light of the said directions.
In view of the prayer made by Mr. Bihani, as recorded above, that the second prayer of participation in the selection to the post of Principal stands not pressed and, taking notice of the first prayer of the petitioners as also recorded above, the College Service Commission shall be now free to proceed in accordance with law.
This Court further records that the prayers of the petitioners to participate in the selection process in the post of Principal stands not pressed.
W.P. 13056 (W) of 2016 and W.P. 13057 (W) 2016 stand accordingly disposed of without inviting further affidavits.
However, affidavits already filed on behalf of the West Bengal College Service Commission be kept with the record.
5Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)