Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Satyadeo Prasad & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 July, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
540 02.07.18
suman
Ct.4
W.P.14552 (W) of 2017
Dr. Satyadeo Prasad & Anr.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anurag Ojha
Mr. Amarendra Chakraborty
..for the petitioners
Mr. Joydip Kar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Aparajita Rao
Ms. P. Gandhi
...for Respondent no.5
Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta ...for UGC Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. AGP Mr. Debasish Basu ...for the State Mr. Ojha, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners submits, omission of section 20 in Presidency University Act, 2010 has created an anomalous situation. Section 20 provides for powers and performance of duties by Executive Council. That stands omitted but section 29, in particular second proviso under sub-section (4) provides for Executive Council having the power to, inter alia, extend period of probation. Furthermore, under that proviso, inter alia, an employee as his clients, could desire to have extension of probationary period to be considered by Executive Council. His clients not being on notice of any 2 deficiency in their service or their unsuitability as perceived by their employer had no reason to seek extension but the fact that under the statute they could and have been denied is reason to strike down act of termination.
Mr. Ojha relies on judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ashok Kumar Singh vs. Vijaya Bank & Ors. reported in 2013 Lab IC 656. He relies on paragraphs 24 and 30 to submit, his clients are similarly situate as petitioner in that case. They have not been served, at any point of time, any communication pointing out defect in their work or deficiency to give them opportunity to rectify their shortcomings. He submits, in that case a judgment of Supreme Court was relied upon, which he relies upon as well. It is the case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1431 as also (1989) 3 SCC 311. He places paragraph 5 of said judgment and submits, the University in terminating probationary services of his clients acted arbitrarily in the facts and circumstances. He also relies on another judgment of Supreme Court in Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank versus Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. and Another reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 669, paragraph
20. He submits, there is lack of proportionality on the part of the University in terminating his clients' probationary 3 service. In the event their services were found to be deficient or there was otherwise unsuitability it would have been proportional on the part of the University to notify his clients about the same. Termination orders are wholly out of proportion.
His last point, as of now, is founded on disclosure in affidavit-in-reply of his clients against affidavit-in- opposition by respondent no.4. Referring to first Annexure therein he submits, another probationer given appointment as such, under the same recruitment process, was given notice to improve herself and at the present time she is likely to be confirmed. Here again there is an act of discrimination palpable against his clients.
Paucity of time intervenes.
List on 11th July, 2018 marked at 2 P. M. ( Arindam Sinha, J. )