Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Uttam Kumar Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal on 14 November, 2014
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
-: 1 : -
103
14.11. 2014
rrc W. P. 25919 (W) of 2014
(Uttam Kumar Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal
& Ors.)
Mr. Pratik Dhar
Md. Safiur Rahaman
.....For the petitioner
Mr. Jahar Lal De
Mr. Somnath Naskar
.....For the State
Mr. Soumya Majumder
Mr. Gazi Fauque Hossain
.....For the respdt. nos. 6 & 7
Mr. Ekramul Bari
Mr. Khandekar Moazzem Hossain
Ms. Tanuja Basak
.....For the respdt. no. 9
The managing committee of Tatarpur High School (hereafter
the 'school') initiated a process for recruitment of a Group-D staff
on a vacant post. Inter alia, the petitioner and the respondent 9
offered their candidature for such recruitment. The respondent 9 and the petitioner figured as the first two candidates in the panel respectively, the difference setting them apart being 0.17 marks only.
The candidates were subjected to a written examination. They were, inter alia, called upon to write the spelling of a Bengali word which in English script reads 'bilagnikaran'. The petitioner spelt it as ¢hm¢NÀLlZ. The answer given by him was considered
-: 2 : -
incorrect. The respondent 9 wrote ¢hmNÀ£LlZ, and was awarded full marks, that is, 0.5 marks for the same. In the ultimate analysis, the 0.5 marks awarded to the respondent 9 or non- awarding of 0.5 marks to the petitioner proved decisive, tilting the scales in favour of the respondent 9 and leading to his appointment.
It is not in dispute that a previous litigation in respect of the self-same selection process had led to a direction on the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Paschim Medinipur (hereafter the 'D.I.') to decide the issue of alleged irregularity in the selection of the respondent 9 for the post. The D.I. in his turn had remitted the matter to the managing committee of the school with the observation that it might obtain written opinion of a competent spelling expert. The managing committee had sought for the opinion of Dr. Layak Ali Khan, Professor, Department of Bengali, Vidyasagar University regarding the correct spelling of the Bengali word 'bilagnikaran'. Referring to a Bengali dictionary published by Sahitya Samsad (2000 edition, reprinted in 2007), Dr. Khan opined that ¢hmNÀ£LlZ is the correct spelling. The petitioner thereafter had applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and obtained the opinion of Dr. Khan. Feeling aggrieved by such opinion, this writ petition has been presented seeking an order to set aside the opinion reflected in
-: 3 : -
the letter dated 3rd June, 2014 and for a direction on the respondents to obtain further written opinion of expert/experts to ascertain the true and correct spelling of the Bengali word 'bilagnikaran'.
Mr. Dhar, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner has invited my attention to BL¡-cj£ h¡e¡e A¢id¡e published by f¢ÕQjh‰ h¡wm¡ BL¡-cj£ and has referred to the spelling of 'bilagnikaran' there. According to him, it has been spelt as ¢hm¢NÀLlZ. It is his further contention that the spelling 'bilagnikaran' written by the respondent 9 may not be incorrect, but at the same time the spelling thereof written by the petitioner is also not incorrect/wrong. Referring to the opinion of Dr. Khan, he submits that an old view has been preferred to the current view of the experts in Bengali. He has prayed for an order for obtaining expert opinion on the true and correct spelling of the word 'bilagnikaran'.
Mr. Majumder, learned advocate representing the school submits that the petitioner has no cause of action to move this Court. According to him, the petitioner has not alleged malafides against the managing committee of the school and in the absence thereof, the Court in wise exercise of its discretion may decline interference. He referred to a decision reported in AIR 1990 SC 434 to contend that judicial review is permissible on limited
-: 4 : -
grounds like illegality in the process of selection or patent irregularity in the constitution of the selection committee vitiating the selection or proved malafides. None of these, he contends, is fulfilled in the present case.
That apart, Mr. Majumder contended that a senior faculty of Vidyasagar University having confirmed that ¢hmNÀ£LlZ is the correct spelling based on a Bengali dictionary of repute, it is not open to the Court to sit in appeal over an academic decision. He has, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Mr. Bari, learned advocate representing the respondent 9 has adopted the submission of Mr. Majumder and submitted that the writ petition does not merit interference.
Mr. De, learned advocate representing the State submitted that the D.I. called upon the managing committee of the school to obtain the opinion of an expert and one such opinion having been obtained, which is not shown to be unworthy of acceptance, the Court may not interfere. However, Mr. De fairly submitted that if the Court intends to call for further expert opinion, the State would not stand in the way.
Illegality in the process of selection having the effect of vitiating it being one of the recognized grounds of judicial review, the Court would be required to examine as to whether the process of selection of the respondent 9 and his ultimate appointment as
-: 5 : -
a Group-D staff suffers from an error of such an extent that the same renders the right of the petitioner to have a fair consideration of his candidature nugatory. He had spelt 'bilagnikaran' as ¢hm¢NÀLlZ, which prima facie appears to be the accepted spelling of the term 'bilagnikaran' as per the BL¡-cj£ h¡e¡e A¢id¡e. The claim of the petitioner is not so frivolous so as to warrant an order to show him the door at the threshold.
Without meaning any disrespect to Dr. Khan (I have noticed that he is not a respondent here), but only for the purpose of ascertaining whether ¢hm¢NÀLlZ, is also an accepted spelling of 'bilagnikaran' currently, I request the Vice Chancellor of the Calcutta University to obtain the opinion of the Head of the Department of Bengali of the University in regard to the above point and to submit a report before this Court on Wednesday next (24th November, 2014) when the writ petition shall be listed once again under the heading 'For Orders'.
It is made clear that this order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in this writ petition.
Let a photo copy of this order be handed over to Dr. Sutanu Patra, learned advocate, who generally appears for the Calcutta University, by the learned advocate-on-record for the petitioner to
-: 6 : -
place it before its Vice Chancellor to comply with the aforesaid direction.
( Dipankar Datta, J. )