Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Biswanath Basak vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 February, 2019
Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya
Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya
1
27th February, W.P. 28689(W) of 2017
2019
(BD)
Sri Biswanath Basak
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Anami Sikdar
Mr. Animesh Bhattacharya
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay
Ms. Iti Dutta
... for the School Authority.
The dispute in the instant writ petition revolves around a document
certifying the genuineness of a mark sheet in M.Sc.(Physics) examination which
was awarded to the petitioner by the "Eastern Institute of Integrated Learning in
Management University (EIILM University), Joverthang, District- Namchi, Sikkim
in 2012.
The petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant
Headmaster and was empanelled as the first rank-holder. The panel papers was
thereafter forwarded by the School authority to the District Inspector of Schools
for necessary approval. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court
since no steps were taken by the District Inspector of Schools and by an order
dated 22nd September, 2016, the petitioner was directed to make a representation
before the respondent/Commissioner of School Education.
The facts as stated in the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner obtained a degree in M.Sc. (Physics) from the Eastern Institute of Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILM University), in 2012, when the said university was recognised and was being run by the University Grant Commission (UGC).2
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner of School Education dated 14th November, 2017 in which the Commissioner relied on the views of a fact finding body formed by the UGC that due to mis- management and mal-administration of the University, the State Government of Sikkim took a decision to dissolve the said University by a Memo issued by the Director of Higher Education of Sikkim on 8th May, 2015. The impugned order records that the said memo was challenged by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 33 of 2015 in the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok which was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. The Commissioner further came to the view that the said University ceased to function from 2015. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order by reason of the decision of the Commissioner to request the School authority to recast the panel on the ground that no marks can be awarded to the petitioner for the M.Sc. degree acquired from the Eastern Institute of Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILM University), Sikkim. It may be relevant to state that the Commissioner was also of the view that since the University is dissolved, it is not possible to verify the genuineness of the mark sheets and certificates which the petitioner choose to rely on for the post of Assistant Headmaster in the concerned school.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the impugned order on primarily the ground that contrary to the findings of the Commissioner, Eastern Institute of Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILM University), is presently functioning under the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Sikkim and that the genuineness of M.Sc. degree awarded to the petitioner can therefore still be verified. Counsel submits that the degree was awarded in 2012 before the Government of Sikkim issued the Memo dated 8th May, 2015 for dissolving the University. Counsel relies on the Judgment of the High Court of Sikkim dated 2nd November, 2016(which had been quoted by the Commissioner in the impugned order) to submit that the said Judgment had no 3 application to the facts of the instant case. He submits that the steps taken by the petitioner himself including an application made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in March 2010 before appearing for the interview shows that the petitioner has come to this Court with clean hands. He further cites a decision of a Division Bench of the Court in Khagendra Nath Paul -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1998 (1) CLJ 283 on the proposition that a degree can be cancelled only by an University and not by school authorities.
Learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner of School Education relies on the findings in the impugned order and submits that the degree and the mark-sheet awarded to the petitioner cannot be verified subsequent to 8th May 2015, since by the Government Memo, Eastern Institute of Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILM University), has been dissolved. He also points to the communication dated 24th August, 2015 being Annexure P-8 to the writ petition, which was issued by the Registrar of the said University to the Headmaster of the School certifying that the mark-sheet and certificate awarded to the petitioner for M.Sc.(Physics) degree under the said University is genuine. According to counsel, this document certifying the veracity of the petitioner's degree/mark sheet could not have been issued on a date subsequent to May 2015 when the University stood dissolved. It is further submitted that the Judgment of the High Court of Sikkim passed in W.P. (C) 33 of 2015 on 2nd November, 2016 had dismissed a challenge to the Memo issued by the Government of Sikkim by which Eastern Institute of Integrated Learning in Management University (EIILM University), stood dissolved. Counsel submits that by reason of the aforesaid Judgment, the order dissolving the University stands and the reliance placed on the said Judgment by the Commissioner of School Education, is relevant to the facts of the case.
Having regard to the submissions of Counsel and upon considering the materials on record, this Court disregard the fact that the Government Memo of 8th May, 2015 by which Eastern Institute of Integrated Learning in Management 4 University (EIILM University), the challenge today a would be evident from the Judgment of the High Court of Sikkim dated 2nd November, 2016.
Second, if this was the case, then the Registrar of the said University certifying the mark sheet of the petitioner on 24th August, 2015, three months after the University stood dissolved, castes a shadow of suspicion on the nature of the document itself. The decision cited by Counsel for the petitioner reported in 1998 (1) CLJ 283 does not apply to the facts of the case since in that decision the issue was whether the school authority has the power to cancel a degree. In this case, it is evident from the impugned order that the degree of the petitioner has not been cancelled; what the Commissioner held is that by reason of the dissolved status of the University, the petitioner's mark sheets and certificates cannot be verified and hence cannot be accepted as a valid degree. Despite the aforesaid, it is also correct that the petitioner was awarded the degree in 2012, three years before the University was dissolved. On the date of being awarded the degree, neither the petitioner nor the University in question could have known of the Government Memo which was to be issued three years later. The allegations of mis-management also concern the University and cannot be held against the petitioner for enrolling in the long distance course for the Post Graduate degree in Physics offered by the University in 2012. Since the petitioner has been serving the concerned school as an Assistant Teacher from 23rd May, 2005, this Court is of the view that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to apply before the appropriate entity of the Government of Sikkim to verify the genuineness of the Mark-sheet and the degree awarded to the petitioner in 2012. As the petitioner has been enjoying an interim order since 30th November, 2017, the petitioner in all fairness should be allowed a window to make a proper representation before the appropriate authority for being considered for the post of Assistant Headmaster in the school subject to the petitioner's fulfilling the other pre-requisites for qualifying for such post.
5In view of the above, the Commissioner of School Education as well as the School Authority being the respondent nos. 2, 5 and 6 are directed not to take any further steps or act in terms of the impugned order dated 14th November, 2017.
The stay of the operation of the impugned order will be for a period of eight weeks from date. If the petitioner does not take any steps in the meantime, the parties will be entitled to act in accordance with law.
W.P. 28689 (W) of 2017 is disposed of with the above direction.
The respondent no. 2 will act on the decision of the appropriate authority within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the decision.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Moushumi Bhattacharya J.)