Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Sanjib Mukhopadhyay & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 December, 2019
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
W.P. NO.19942 (W) of 2009
Sri Sanjib Mukhopadhyay & Anr.
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharjee
Mr. Arif Ahemed
For the State : Mr. Dipankar Pal
For the College Service : Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal
Commission Mrs. Bandana Das
Mr. Subhrangsu Panda
Heard on : 18.11.2019
Judgment on : 18.12.2019
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:
1. By an order dated 4 November, 2019, the name of the petitioner no.1 had been expunged from the records and this petition was directed to be proceeded with only insofar as the petitioner no.2 was concerned.
2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner no.2 passed the B.Sc. examination with Physics Honours and thereafter proceeded to obtain a Master's Degree in Computer Application from the Sikkim Manipal University. The petitioner no.2 was thereafter awarded a degree in (M. Phil.) from the Global Open University, Dimapur, Nagaland.
2
3. By an advertisement issued by the West Bengal College Service Commission dated 17 June, 1999 the State respondents sought for candidates who had the following qualifications:
(i) Consistently good academic record with at least 55% marks (without any sort of grace or an equivalent grade in the Master's's degree preceded by 3 years Hons. Degree in "the concerned subject" with at least 2nd class marks.
Relaxation of 5% from 55% of the marks is admissible to candidates (a) belonging to SC/ST/PH category, and (b) qualified in the JRF examination conducted by the UGS/CSIR only prior to 1989.
(ii) Qualifying of the Eligibility Test for JRF/Lectureship conducted by UGC/CSIR (NET) or UGC accredited State Eligibility Test (SET) earlier SLET conducted by WBCSC or possessing of Ph.D. or M.Phil. degree in "the concerned subject".
(iii) Good power of expression (speaking, reading & writing) in Bengali/Nepali.
(emphasis supplied)
4. It is alleged by the petitioner that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria in terms of the aforesaid advertisement and the petitioner no.2 was summoned to appear before the interview board on 19 March, 2009 and duly participated in the same. However, the name of the petitioner no.2 was not incorporated in the probation merit list on the ground that the petitioner no.2 had not obtained a graduation degree in the similar subject i.e. Computer Science. In other words, the petitioner no.2 had applied for the post of a lecturer in Computer Science and was denied 3 selection on the ground that the petitioner no.2 was a B.Sc Degree holder in Physics (Hons.) and had only an M.Sc. Degree in Computer Science.
5. The issue raised in this writ petition therefore is whether the words "concerned subject" in the advertisement means the "same subject" and whether a B.Sc degree in Physics could be equated to be or regarded as a degree in Computer Science.
6. Counsel on the behalf of the petitioner no.2 submitted that, since he applied for the post of lecturer in Computer Science his selection could not have been denied on the ground that he had a B.Sc degree in Physics (Hons.) and according to him a B.Sc degree in Physics (Hons.) was good enough for applying for the post of a lecturer in Computer Science. The petitioner placed much emphasis on the Calcutta Information Brochure published by the Calcutta University and on the fact that an Honours Degree in Physics is the feeder qualification for admission for a post- graduate degree in Computer Science. The petitioner also placed emphasis on the fact that he was an M.Sc in Computer Science as well as an M.Phil in Computer Science. It was alleged on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner no.2 was having an M.Sc Degree in Computer Science he fulfilled the qualification of teaching for the post of an Assistant Professor in Computer Science. The petitioner no.2 further relied on an unreported decisions in Srijan Das vs. State of West Bengal (WP NO.1241 of 2009), West Bengal College Service Commission vs. Mandira Ghosh in APOT NO.300 of 2010 and the decision in Runa Chakraborty vs. 4 West Bengal College Service Commission in WP No.342 of 2010 and contended that the writ petition ought to be allowed.
7. Counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed because the petitioner was not qualified in terms of the advertisement issued by the West Bengal College Service Commission. It was contended both on behalf of the State as well as the College Service Commission that in terms of the advertisement the "concerned subject" had to be interpreted to mean the same subject both in the Master's degree and the graduation level i.e. Computer Science. He relied on clause 'E' of the advertisement which provided that qualification in certain subject in respect of which Master's Degree and Honours Degree in the same subject were not essential. Those subjects are (i) Defence Studies; (ii) Environmental Science; (iii) Film Studies; (iv) Journalism; (v) Molecular Biology; (vi) Santhali; (vii) Fine Arts and (viii) Political Science as stipulated in advertisement. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that it was only in those eight subjects that a candidate could be considered if he had not obtained both a Master's Degree and an Honours Degree in the same subject. However, in respect of the other subjects including Computer Science for the post of a lecturer, the candidate was required to have both i.e. Master's Degree and an Honours Degree in Computer Science.
8. The respondents also contended that an M.Phil. degree in Computer Science from the Global University, Dimapur, Nagaland through distance 5 mode of education was not a recognized degree for the purpose of lectureship for colleges under the different universities in West Bengal.
9. The respondents further placed reliance on the advertisement dated 5 December, 2008 and a copy of the G.O. No.627 Edn(CS) dated 17 June, 1999 and Ref. G.O. No.756 Edn(CS) dated 28 November, 2008 and contended that the petitioner no.2 did not have the requisite qualification to obtain the post of a lecturer in Computer Science.
10. The respondents placed much emphasis on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Ganpati Singh vs. Gulbarga University [(2014)3 SCC 767] to contend that if an advertisement required an Honours Degree in the "relevant subject" that would mean that the "relevant degree" must be in the "same" subject and not in any other subject.
11. The respondent further contended that as per the UGC Rules no candidate was permitted to apply for the post of an Assistant Professor of Lecturer in any subject without qualifying either in the National Eligibility Test (NET) or the State Eligibility Test (SET) earlier (SLET) or a Ph.D degree in accordance with the UGC Circulars. As such, the petitioner no.2 was ineligible and did not have the required qualifications for the post of a lecturer in Computer Science. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that it was well settled that after lapse of a Selection List no appointment could be made. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that it is well settled that a recommendation of an Expert Committee ought not to be lightly interfered with by a Court. In particular, 6 it was urged on behalf of the respondents that the brochure which was published in 2013-14 relied on by the petitioners could not be made applicable to the facts of the instant case since the appointment for the post of a lecturer in the instant case was pursuant to an advertisement which had been published on 5 December, 2008. Thus, it was contended on behalf of both the respondents that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed and the interim order dated 2 July, 2019 was liable to be vacated.
12. Quite clearly, the crux of the case rests on the interpretation of the advertisement being advertisement no.3 of 2008 inviting applications for preparation of panel for post of the lecturer in Government colleges and the entire controversy centres on the words "the concerned subject" as stipulated in the said advertisement.
13. I am of the view that the word "concerned subject" in the facts and circumstances of the instant case meant the same subject and a prospective candidate was required thereunder to such qualification both at the graduation level and the Master's level. This would be further evident from the use of the word 'the' preceding the words "concerned subject". Thus, the words "the concerned subject" plainly implied that the need was for the "same or identical or similar or equivalent" qualifications. This interpretation is further reinforced by clause 'E' of the advertisement which specifically provides that for other certain posts i.e. Master's Degree and an Honours Degree in the same subject were not an essential criteria. 7
14. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner no.2 did not possess the requisite degree i.e. both B.Sc and Master's Degree in the "concerned subject" i.e. Computer Science.
15. The cases cited on behalf of the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts and are inapposite. In the decision in West Bengal College Service Commission vs. Mandira Ghosh arising out of WP No.238 of 2010, the question that arose for consideration was whether a Bachelors of Arts and Honours Degree in Sanskrit and a Master's Degree in Sanskrit could be regarded as an equivalent degree conferred by a University in respect of any other subject. In the present case, it is difficult to accept that a B.Sc Degree in Physics could be considered equivalent to a B.Sc Degree in Computer Science. Similarly, the decision in Sreejan Das vs. State of West Bengal in WP No.1241 of 2009, pertained to whether an Honours Degree in Political Science and a Post-Graduate Degree in International Relations could be considered to be the same subject. However, in the instant case the post of a lecturer as an Assistant Professor in Computer Science and post of lecturer as the Assistant Professor in Physics are two different and distinct posts.
16. On similar grounds, the decision in Runa Chakraborty vs. West Bengal College Service Commission in WP No.342 of 2010 and WP No.471 of 2010, is inapplicable and distinguishable to the facts of the instant case. In the aforesaid decision, the petitioner had obtained a graduate degree in "English" and was also an M.Phil. in "Women Studies". She had applied for the post of a lecturer in English and it was held that she 8 fulfilled the eligibility criteria in that case. However, in the facts of the present case as stated hereinbefore, the two subjects i.e. an Honours Degree in Physics and Post-Graduate Degree in Computer Science are two different, distinct and separate degrees in different disciplines which to my mind cannot be equated. Rather, from the language of the advertisement it is clear and explicit that a prospective candidate for the post of a lecturer in Computer Science was required to have a B.Sc degree and a Master's Degree in the same subject i.e. Computer Science. There is no ambiguity in the advertisement and hence the intention of the Authority must be given full effect. Accordingly, since the petitioner no.2 does not possess an Honours Degree and a Master's Degree in the same subject i.e. Computer Science he was deemed to be ineligible for the post of a lecturer in Computer Science and was lawfully rejected by the respondents.
17. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed and the interim order dated 2 July, 2019 is vacated. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
18. Urgent certified photostat copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)