Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Professor (Dr.) Sumanta Bhattacharyya vs Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad on 22 June, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
22.06.2018
Item no. 36
ddas WP 27999 (W) of 2017
Professor (Dr.) Sumanta Bhattacharyya
Vs.
Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad
University of Technology & Ors.
+
WP 5867 (W) of 2018
Deepti Dutta (Bhattacharjee)
Vs.
Maulana Abul Kalam Ajad University & Ors.
+
WP 5868 (W) of 2018
Pradyut Dutta
Vs.
Maulana Abul kalam Ajad University & Ors.
Mr. Rabilal Maitra, ld. sr. adv.
Mr. P.S. Deb Barman
Mr. Rajitlal Maitra
... ...For the petitioner in WP 27999 (W) of 2017
Mr. Srijib Chakraborty
Mr. J. D. Roy
... ...For the respondent nos. 6 and 7
in WP 27999 (W) of 2017/ petitioners in WP 5867 (W) of 2018 & WP 5868 (W) of 2018 Ms. Nandini Mitra Ms. Sreyashi Chatterjee ... ... For the University Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury .... ....For the respondent no. 4 in WP 27999 (W) of 2017 Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya Mr. M. M. Roy ... ...For the respondent no. 3 in WP 27999 (W) of 2017 Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Nilanjan Pal .. ...For the respondent no. 2 2 in WP 27999 (W) of 2017 Mr. Suranjan Dasgupta Mr. Saurav Bose ... ...For the University/respd. no.1 Petitioner in this writ petition being WP 27999 (W) of 2017 has sought intervention of Court for issuance of writ of Mandamus, commanding respondents not to give any effect to letter dated 23rd September, 2017 and electronic mail dated 25th September, 2017 issued by respondent no. 3. Mr. Maitra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (in WP 27999(W) of 2017) and draws attention to his client's appointment letter dated 14th May, 2016. The relevant part of the said letter is reproduced below :-
"Subject to the approval of the Managing Committee, we have great pleasure to appoint you in the post of Principal of Hooghly Engineering & Technology College, Vivekananda Road, Pipulpati, P.O & Dist: Hooghly, Pin: 712103, W.B., with probation for one year and you will be confirmed thereafter. We expect you to join on and from 18th May, 2016."
He refers to Hooghly Engineering & Technology College Service, Leave & Conduct Rules in particular to rule 5.5 and 5.6. They are reproduced below :-
"5.5. All employees shall be employed as probationer initially that is, on trial for one year. After one year's satisfactory completion of service they shall be confirmed automatically.
5.6. The Secretary of the Hooghly Engineering and Technology College Society shall be the appointing authority in all cases of appointments."3
He submits, this appointment letter was duly issued by appointing authority under the rules.
He refers to impugned letter dated 23rd September, 2017 and impugned e.mail which is in substance a reproduction. He submits, this letter was issued after more than one year of service. His client stood automatically confirmed on one year of service. There is no material disclosed to show that probation period was extended beyond one year for it to be subsisting as on 23rd September, 2017 as could be terminated. He seeks orders for relief of his client.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7 (in WP 27999 (W) of 2017) refers to appointment letter of petitioner and rule 5.5. He submits, satisfactory completion of service in probation period would lead to automatic confirmation. This satisfactory completion petitioner has not been able to demonstrate. He also relies on procedures for inquiries and punishment/penalties in the rules to submit, petitioner being probationer employee, those provisions could not be applied against him.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 3 (in WP 27999 (W) of 2017) and submits, there is order dated 19th December, 2017 in which there was direction upon respondent no. 1 to inquire into the matter by an inquiry team and thereafter if it is found that administrator should be appointed for smooth functioning of the college then there would arise occasion 4 for Court to consider granting leave for appointment of administrator. A report has been filed and it will appear therefrom that inquiry team found petitioner's service to be unsatisfactory in the time he was on probation. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 2 (in WP 27999 (W) of 2017) and supports the case of petitioner.
At this stage Mr. Chakraborty and Mr. Bhattacharya both seek to rely on minutes of meeting of managing committee of the college held on 22nd April, 2017, copy of which has been handed up to Court and Mr. Maitra. Mr. Maitra disputes genuineness of this document. Parties seeking to rely on it must first improve such allegation.
List on 27th June, 2018.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)