Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The Visva Bharati vs Dr. Atanu Sasmal & Ors on 20 May, 2025
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
20.05.2025
Sl No.31
Court No.8
(SKG)
MAT 1684 of 2022
With
CAN 4 of 2025
The Visva Bharati, Santiniketan
-vs-
Dr. Atanu Sasmal & Ors.
Mr. Victor Chatterjee,
...for the Appellant.
Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Dipanwita Sarkar,
....for the Respondents
Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, ... for the UGC
1. The appeal is arising out of a judgment and order dated 12th September, 2022, in a writ petition in which the writ petitioner has prayed for a direction upon Visva-Bharati, Shantiniketan to promote him to the post of professor in Bengali following the Career Advancement Scheme (in short 'CAS') under the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standard in Higher Education, 2010 (in short UGC Regulation 2010). In the month of September 2013, the writ petitioner submitted her application before the respondent no.9 for promotion under CAS.
2
2. Shortly put, the petitioner was an Assistant Professor in Bengali on January 1, 2006 and he became eligible for promotion under CAS to the post of Professor (Stage-5) from Associate Professor (Stage-4) after the completion of three years of service in accordance with Rules and Regulation. He has produced all the required documents for consideration. The difficulty arose when the selection committee drastically reduced the average of marks from 36 out of 50 to 30 out of 30 and 10 out of 20 whereby it differs from the marks given by the expert committee. Over and above the members of the Selection Committee have not given separate marks as opposed to the procedure followed by the Expert Committee in which the individual expert has awarded separate marks which was the correct procedure to be followed even in the case of selection committee.
3. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge it is not anybody's case how the selection committee awarded even lower than the lowest marks amongst the three members of expert committee. The University was unable to demonstrate the basis of such assessment of selection committee and 3 nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate that the assessment of the three- member expert Committee was at all factored in the final assessment in terms of regulations 6.0.7 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. The said Regulation for the purpose of convenience as stated below:
"6.0.7. The process of selection of Professor shall involve inviting the bio-data with duly filled performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) proforma developed by the respective universities based on the API criteria based PBAS set out in this Regulation and reprints of five major publications of the candidates.
Provided that such publications submitted by the candidate shall have been published subsequent to the period from which the teacher was placed in the Assistant Professor stage-II.
Provided further that such publications shall be provided to the subject experts for assessment before the interview and the evaluation of the publications by the experts shall be factored into the weightage scores while finalizing the outcome of selection."
4. The selection committee cannot act contrary to the UGC guideline 2010 and is bound to factor the marks of expert committee in the final selection. It is an admitted position that the members of the selection committee in the 4 interview did not award marks individually and all of them have been awarded consolidated marks.
5. The Supreme Court in the judgment in Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey reported at 2015(11) SCC 494 after noticing the judgment in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1981(4)SCC 159 held as follows:
"19. Now, so far as the question of awarding consolidated marks by all the panelists in the interview is concerned, we are in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge. The purpose of constituting multimember interview panel is to remove the arbitrariness and ensure objectivity. It is required by each member of the interview panel to apply his/her own mind in giving marks to the candidates. The best evidence of independent application of mind by each panelist is that they awarded separate marks. However, if only consolidated marks are awarded at the interview, it becomes questionable, though not conclusive, whether each panelist applied his/her own mind independently...."
6. The particulars of marking by the expert committee under the heading "Contribution of Research" are as follows:
a. Professor of English, West Bengal State University (Retd.) (8+7+6+6+6)=33 out of 50 5 b. Professor, Department of English, Kalyani University (4.5+04+3.5+04+04)=20 out of 50 c. Professor, Department of English, Calcutta University (Retd.) 62% i.e.31 out of 50 Total = 84 out of 150 i.e.average 28 out of 50.
7. It clearly establishes to that the selection committee has violated the UGC norms in the process of selection.
8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Viswa Bharati University has submitted that in similar situation, direction has been passed by the Single Bench for remanding the matter to the selection committee once again with an opportunity to assess the candidate after taking into consideration the marks awarded by the expert committee.
9. However, in the instant case in view of the fact that the petitioner is in service and we are satisfied proper procedure was followed. On such consideration we are not inclined to interfere the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. The appeal and the applications fail.
11. We direct the learned Registrar General to encash the Fixed Deposit created in terms of the order dated 8th August, 2024 and release the proceeds thereof in favour of the writ petitioner by DD/NEFT/Cheque as the case 6 may be upon proper identification within three weeks from the date of communication of this order.
12. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Soumen Sen, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)