Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Abhigyan Dutta vs Kazi Nazrul University & Ors on 7 September, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 07.09.2016
.
rc W.P. No. 11701(W) of 2016 Dr. Abhigyan Dutta Versus Kazi Nazrul University & Ors.
Mr. N. Bhattacharjee
Ms. Paramita Ray .. for the petitioner
Mr. Kishore Dutta
Mrs. Sumita Shaw ... for the University
Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu .. for the State
The petitioner has assailed a communication dated June 20, 2016 issued by the University purporting to cancel his appointment.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in a selection process for the post of Associate Professor in Physics. The petitioner was successful in the selection process. He was issued an appointment letter dated April 28, 2015. The petitioner had asked for extension to join, which was granted. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued the impugned letter. He submits that, the impugned letter does not contain any reasons as to why the University has sought to cancel the appointment given. He contends that, once the appointment has been issued by the University, it was improper for the University to cancel such appointment without affording a right of hearing to the petitioner. He next contends that, the petitioner had fulfilled all the eligibility criteria in the selection process. Therefore, there was no ground for the University to cancel the appointment.
2Learned senior advocate for the University submits that, in the event the impugned notice is set aside on the ground of no reasons and breach of principles of natural justice, an opportunity should be given to the University to proceed in accordance with law so far as the appointment of the petitioner is concerned.
Learned advocate for the State submits that, the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner should be considered as a non-appointment. In such case it was not necessary for the University to adhere to the principles of natural justice. In support of such contentions he relies upon a decision reported at (2006)2 SCC 315 (Md. Sartaj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) I have considered the rival contentions of the appearing parties and the materials made available on record.
The University had undertaken a selection process for appointment to diverse posts including the post of Associate Professor in Physics by an advertisement dated January 19, 2016. The terms and conditions of the selection process was subsequently modified in terms of a Government Memorandum dated February 03, 2011. The petitioner had participated in the selection process. He was successful. He was issued an appointment letter on April 28, 2015 by the University Authority. The petitioner did not join the post. He had sought for extension which was granted. Prior to the expiry of the extended time for joining and before the petitioner joined the post, the University authorities had issued the impugned notice dated June 20, 2016.
By the impugned notice the University authorities has informed the petitioner that, the panel for the post stand cancelled due to unavoidable circumstances and, therefore, the appointment letter issued to the petitioner stands null and void.
The issue that the petitioner did not fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria is a question of fact. That has to be looked into by an appropriate stage. There are rival contentions with regard to the prescribed selection process. The impugned letter dated June 20, 2016 does not specify the ground on which the appointment of the petitioner was 3 sought to be cancelled. The petitioner was also not given an opportunity of hearing before the cancellation of his appointment.
The appointment being granted by the University, a legal right had enured to the benefit of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to at least a hearing before his services is terminated. In the present case, after grant of appointment the University has sought to terminate the services of the petitioner.
Md. Sartaj (Supra) is a case where it has been held that, the principle of natural justice need not be adhered to once it is found that a candidate did not have the requisite qualification to hold the post. As noted above, the issue whether the petitioner fulfills the prescribed eligibility criteria has to be looked into to arrive at such a decision. It cannot be said with certainty on the basis of the materials made available on record and without further enquiry that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for the post.
In such circumstances I am of the view that the impugned notice has been issued in breach of the principles of natural justice. The impugned notice does not contain any reasons. An administrative action which affects the rights of a third party ought to be informed with reasons.
In view of the discussions the impugned letter dated June 20, 2016 is set aside. The decision of the University to terminate the service of the petitioner is also set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to join his post within four weeks from date.
This order will, however, not prevent the University to take appropriate steps against the petitioner in accordance with law with regard to his appointment.
With the above observations W.P.No. 11701(W) of 2016 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) 4