Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Swarna Sekhar Kumar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 January, 2020
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
W. P. No.21517 (W) of 2019
Swarna Sekhar Kumar
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
07.01.2020 Mr. Samiran Giri ... for the petitioner.
Sl-42
Ct.15 Mr. Swapan Kr. Datta, Ld. AGP
(S.R.) Mr. Tapas Kr. Mandal ... for the State.
Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee ... for BCKV.
Mr. Subir Sanyal
Mr. Arijit Dey ... for the respondent nos.13 to 20.
Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.
The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following relief: -
(a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and each one of them to cancel the selection process in connection with the advertisement no. DEE/KVK/01/2019 dated 4th June 2019 issued by the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Biswa Vidyalar directorate of Extension Education."
Mr. Giri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the employment notification issued by the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (in short, BCKV) on 4th June, 2019, the petitioner applied for the post of Farm Manager and also for the post of Subject Matter Agricultural Extension. 2 Upon consideration of such application, he was called for an interview by a memo dated 28th August, 2019. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner came to learn that the selection process had been conducted in an illegal and arbitrary manner without obtaining State Government's approval and the approval of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (in short, ICAR). In support of such contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents annexed at pages 57 and 67 of the writ petition.
Per contra Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for BCKV submits that no prior approval of the State Government was required for filling up the concerned posts inasmuch as the salary of the employees were to be borne by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (in short, ICAR). However, due to pendency of the writ petition, the salary of the selected candidates was stopped. After appropriate explanation was furnished by the BCKV authorities, the authorities of ICAR had released the salary subject to the result of the pending writ petition.
Mr. Dey, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents denies the contention of the petitioner and 3 submits that having participated in the selection process, the petitioner cannot turn back and challenge the same.
Mr. Datta, learned APG appearing for the State respondents submits that under Section 33A of the BCKV Act, 1974 no post can be created and no appointment can be made without the State Government's approval.
Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be decided upon exchange of affidavits.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition within a period of four weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
The parties would be at liberty to mention the matter for final hearing after expiry of the period as fixed above towards exchange of affidavits.
The maintainability point as urged by Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Dey is kept open to be decided at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)