Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Utpal Das & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 May, 2019
Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee
Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :The Hon'ble Justice Protik Prakash Banerjee
W.P. 8122(W) of 2016
Utpal Das & Anr.
vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Heard on: May 15, 2019
Judgment on: May 15, 2019
Protik Prakash Banerjee, J.: Pursuant to my order dated May 10, 2019 when I allowed the
mentioning of the matter, the writ petitioners have served notice on the respondents personally.
Such notice has very clearly mentioned that the matter would be taken up for final hearing and disposal today. It was served on the Vice Chancellor of the University on May 13, 2019. The affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioners in terms of the said order.
The petitioners Utpal Das and Shyamali Kumar have personally appeared today since I have granted them leave to appear personally on considering the urgency made out by them. The petitioners have stated that the selection process for the College Service Commission will be initiated if not completed by next month. Accordingly the pendency of this writ petition where they have sought for a provisional certificate on their Ph.D. might be a reason to disqualify them in such selection process because they will not be able to show that they have the qualification of Ph.D. 2 The petitioners appearing for themselves, which I have permitted as aforesaid, have placed before me the writ petition and also two documents which are part of their supplementary affidavit affirmed by them on October 5, 2016 pursuant to a liberty granted to the petitioners on September 9, 2016. They say that this supplementary affidavit was served on the respondents through their learned advocates. They have also placed before me a copy of the affidavit in opposition used by the respondent/Burdwan University. They have also produced a copy of the affidavit in reply which they say was duly affirmed. From the aforesaid pleadings in the writ petition and the copy of the affidavit in opposition it appears that the only dispute is whether the writ petitioners are entitled to issuance of a provisional certificate of Ph. D. in Arts (Sanskrit). It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners have not sat for a viva voce examination to openly defend their theses.
I have personally heard the petitioners and even during the arguments the petitioners have very knowledgeably defended their theses of contribution of folk culture on Ramayana and Mahabharata (by petitioner No. 2 Smt. Shyamali Kumar) and political thinking on demotic sanskrit poesy (loukik Sanskrit Kabye Rajnaitik Chintan) (by Sri Utpal Das petitioner No. 1) which appear to be the gravamen of their doctoral theses. Added to this are the two documents calling the petitioners for the viva voce which have been disclosed by the supplementary affidavit at page 5 and the admission by the members of the faculty who have disputed the official version of the University about the viva voce. The notice is dated July 24, 2015 and the admission of the faculty members is dated October 16, 2015. The supplementary affidavit is taken on record.
Prima facie, therefore, the viva voce did afford an opportunity to the petitioners to openly defend their theses but unfortunately there is nothing on record to show that this was served on the respondents through their learned advocates. Today none of the learned advocates is appearing. Despite service the University has chosen not to arrange for representation of its side in the matter even through an authorised representative. For this the petitioners cannot be made 3 to suffer especially since in a selection process of the College Service Commission which is going to be held in the next month their qualifications would become material and unless a decision is taken on granting of Ph. D. degree no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the said selection process.
Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondent-University to decide on the question whether the viva voce was duly held with a chance to the writ petitioners of openly defending their theses which they successfully completed as appears from the annexures to the supplementary affidavit taken on record today. In view of the selection process of the College Service Commission being imminent, I direct the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to consider and dispose of this matter as referred to above within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of this order and to communicate the result within a period of three days therefrom to the petitioners. If it is held that in view of the admission made by Professor Sumitra Batabyal and Professor Laltu Ruidas on October 16, 2015 that the viva voce was duly held and, therefore, the regulations of the University have been duly observed, the provisional Ph. D certificate must be made over to the petitioners within the said period of three days after the decision has been taken. Needless to mention I have not gone into the merits of the matter as to whether or not the viva voce was actually held in the manner as admitted by the faculty members and as asserted by the petitioners. The respondents authorities shall decide the matter in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners without being influenced by anything recorded by me.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Let photostat plain copy of the order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the petitioners on usual undertaking.
4
(Protik Prakash Banerjee, J.) jb.