Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Anupam Hazra vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1 02.05.2018
Court No.04 Item no.400 skc W.P. 14179 (W) of 2017 Dr. Anupam Hazra Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Dr. Anupam Hazra ... Petitioner (in person) Mr. Subrata Roy Karmakar Mr. Sanjay Bhattacharyya Mr. Arindam Banerjee ... for Visva Bharati University Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta ... for the U.G.C. Mr. Roy Karmakar, learned advocate appears on behalf of Visva Bharati and files affidavit-in-opposition with copy served upon petitioner. He relies on paragraphs 3(g) to (j) and submits, there is a serious dispute regarding whether petitioner had presented himself to resume duties. Impugned letter of termination was by reason of omission to resume duties as was duly issued. He also submits, there was doubt raised as to whether petitioner could serve simultaneously as a Member of Parliament as well as Assistant Professor of Visva Bharati. Petitioner had not satisfactorily cleared that doubt. All these according to him have been stated in the affidavit filed.
Petitioner appears in person and relies on Joint Committee on Offices of Profit(Sixteenth Lok Sabha) Fourth Report, presented to Lok Sabha on 13th August, 2015 and laid in Rajya Sabha also on that date. He relies upon the following portion of the report:
"Therefore, Dr. Anupam Hazra can hold both the offices of Member of Parliament and that of Assistant Professor at the Visva-Bharati University, as under Article 102(1)(a), the office of Assistant Professor does not qualify as an office of profit under the Government.
Further, it is held by the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit that since the office of Assistant Professor at the Visva-bharati University is not an office under the Central Government in the absence of vital requirements, the University may resolve 2 the matter on its own in light of the specified service requirements.
In doing so, the Committee recommends that the directions of the UGC Circular dated 10th September, 1974 and 06 March, 1987 and the circulars issued from time to time regulating the service conditions of teachers be strictly followed by the University."
Mr. Roy Karmakar's submission regarding petitioner not being physically present to resume his duties cannot be accepted on the basis of statements made in the affidavit. The deponent has not stated that he himself was present on the date when petitioner was not. The letter dated 26th May, 2015 which petitioner relies on as his application to resume duty bears endorsement of receipt by the Vice Chancellor's Office. That letter appears to have been served by hand. This Court therefore rejects the contention raised belatedly by affidavit that petitioner was not present to resume his duties.
The University will consider the observations made in orders dated 30th April, 2018 and of this day, make known their position and be heard on the adjourned date.
List under the heading "Motion" on 10th May, 2018.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)