Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Dilip Kumar Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & on 18 April, 2017

Author: Subrata Talukdar

Bench: Subrata Talukdar

                                     1


        18.04.17
 86     Ct. No.29
Sws.M
                                     W.P. 6594(W) of 2013

                    [Dilip Kumar Mondal Vs The State of West Bengal &
                                         Ors.]

                            Mr. Samimul Bari
                                                            ....for the petitioner


                               Mr. Anik Kumar Gupta

                                                                  .....for the UGC



                        Mr. Samimul Bari, learned counsel appears for the

                    petitioner. The challenge in this writ petition is to the

                    palpable      non-application     of        mind     by   the

                    respondent/Rabindra Bharati University (for short the

RBU) by failing to communicate to the petitioner the ultimate reasoned conclusion of their Selection Committee for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor, Education as advertised on 14th January, 2011.

Mr. Bari submits that although the petitioner applied for the recruitment and, was called for the interview, the petitioner ran from pillar to post to obtain the conclusion of the Selection Committee. Mr. Bari 2 points out to page 34 of the writ petition which is a communication from the Assistant Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal addressed to the petitioner stating that the Selection Committee of the respondent/ RBU came to the only conclusion that none was found suitable for the post. Mr. Bari next takes this Court to the Affidavit-in- Opposition filed on behalf of the respondent/ RBU which, merely states at paragraph 10 thereof, that the petitioner was not suitable for the post since the petitioner failed to meet the standard of a suitable candidate for the post. Mr. Bari submits that the above noted conclusion of the respondent/RBU, apart from the vague, is untenable in law because the Selection Committee is enjoined to demonstrate a minimum application of mind.

Mr. Bari also takes this Court to the solemn order of an Hon'ble Single Bench dated 12th August, 2014 directing the respondent/RBU to produce the records of the Selection.

On behalf of the respondent/University Grants Commission (for short UGC), Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appears and submits that the stand of the UGC is that the respondent /RBU are required to follow the UGC norms for the selection in issue. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is of the view at this stage that the Affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent/RBU fails to meet the levels of judicial certainty required to be applied in this adjudication.

Accordingly, this Court finds force in the direction upon the respondent/RBU to produce the original records of selection by the order dated 12th August, 2014 (supra).

Inspite of notice none appears for the respondent/RBU. Accordingly, the petitioner grants one more opportunity to serve notice of this order to the respondent/RBU to clarify its stand before this Court on the next date.

Let this matter next appear under the same heading 'Hearing Upto -2014' on 25th April, 2017. The petitioner is directed to produce proof of service on the next date.

(Subrata Talukdar, J.)