Calcutta High Court
Mandira Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 March, 2010
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
WP 238 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Original Side
Mandira Ghosh
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Adv.
...... for the Petitioner
Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, Sr.Adv.
.... For the Respondent No.3
Mr. Prafulla Ghosh, Adv.
.... For the State Present :
The Hon'ble Justice TAPEN SEN March 9, 2010.
THE COURT : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, learned Counsel, appears for the Petitioner while Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, learned Counsel, appears for the West Bengal College Service Commission. Mr. Prafulla Ghose, learned Counsel, appears for the State of West Bengal.
The Petitioner, having passed her B.A. Examination in the year 2001 with honours in Sanskrit, subsequently passed out from the Jadavpur University after completing her M.A. in Sanskrit in the year 2005 and obtained M.Phil. degree in comparative literature from the same University. The West Bengal College Service Commission came out with an advertisement, being Advertisement No. 3 of 2008, on 5th December, 2008 whereby and whereunder they called for applications from eligible candidates for purposes of appointment to the post of Lecturer/Librarian for non- Government colleges and Teachers' Training Colleges affiliated to the State University of West Bengal.2
The Petitioner responded to the said advertisement and offered her candidature for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit under the North Bengal University Zone whereafter the Secretary of the Commission by his letter as contained in Annexure-"P-3" directed her to appear before the Interview Board on 1st July, 2009. Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal has very vehemently highlighted a note incorporated in the said call letter saying that the same was provisional and that if any material error/discrepancy or wrong information was furnished by the Applicant and if the same was detected before the interview/empanelment, her candidature was liable to be rejected. This Court would deal with this objection subsequently.
It is the case of the Petitioner that pursuant to the said call letter, she appeared on 1st July, 2009 and thereafter on 25th November, 2009, the Commission published a merit list in respect of Sanskrit and the name of the Petitioner was placed at Serial No.3. This would be evident from page-25 of the Writ Petition wherein she has been shown at Serial No. 3 as an OBC candidate.
However, on 15th February, 2010, when the Petitioner went to the West Bengal College Service Commission to enquire about counselling etc., she came to learn that her name had been deleted from the panel and that an intimation in that regard had been sent to her giving reasons for deletion. A letter was then received by her, being the letter dated 9th February, 2010, which, according to the Petitioner, was received by her on 20th February, 2010. Upon a perusal of Annexure-"P-6" at page 26, the fact relating to deletion has been mentioned and the reason given for such deletion is to be found at page 27 which says that since she had M.Phil in comparative literature, therefore her name was deleted from the provisional panel of the North Bengal University. 3
'Ere at this stage, it would be worthwhile to advert to the advertisement which has been brought on record vide Annexure-"P-1" because Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal has submitted that the eligibility in so far as degree colleges are concerned, it was clearly laid down at clause (ii) that a candidate must possess a degree of Ph.D. or M.Phil. in the concerned subject. He submits that since the Petitioner was M.Phil. in comparative literature, it was not the concerned subject of Sanskrit and therefore, there was no irregularity on the part of the Secretary of the Commission to reject the application. This Court is not inclined to agree with the submissions of Mr. Mondal primarily because it cannot adjudicate on a qualification of a candidate which, in the opinion of this Court, is the exclusive prerogative of the educational institution which imparts education and which is the custodian of records to say as to whether its student has qualified in a particular subject or not.
It is in this context that the Supplementary Affidavit filed today in Court becomes pivotal to the issue for purposes of adjudication of this case. Though Affidavits perhaps should have been called for, but in view of the nature of the Order that this Court proposes to pass, learned Counsel for the Parties have agreed for disposal of the matter on the basis of pleadings brought on record till today. Therefore no Affidavits are called for and consequently, none of the allegations made, if any, should be deemed to have been admitted by any of the Respondents.
In the Supplementary Affidavit, there are three documents of the Jadavpur University which, at this stage, would perhaps be apt to mention as being one of the most reputed Universities of the State. This University has issued two Certificates both of which are appended to the Supplementary Affidavit and one of which is Annexure-"P-6" 4
and the other, Annexure-"P-7". The first Certificate dated 22nd February, 2010 says that Mandira Ghose, the Petitioner, who did her M.Phil. in comparative literature and M.A. in Sanskrit had substantial component of Sanskrit while doing her M.Phil. and therefore, the same should be considered relevant to the subject.
In the other Certificate issued by the Head of the Department of Sanskrit of the said Jadavpur University, it specifies that any candidate who has completed M.Phil. in comparative literature is eligible for a teaching post in Sanskrit and vice versa.
Besides these two Certificates, there is a letter written by the Registrar and addressed to the Petitioner and which is contained in Annexure-"P-8" appended to the Supplementary Affidavit, being the letter dated March 2/3, 2010. This letter, while referring to the Petitioner's appeal to the Vice Chancellor on the subject of treating the M.Phil. degree as equivalent, has reproduced the resolution of the Faculty Council for P.G. and U.G. studies in Arts of the said Jadavpur University and the resolution quoted therein shows that it was resolved by the said Faculty Council that M.Phil. degree in comparative literature from that University was equivalent to that of Sanskrit.
Could there, therefore, be any error or discrepancy or wrong information furnished by the applicant as raised by Mr. Mondal ? In the opinion of this Court, the answer would be a vehement "NO". Being led by rules and procedures and Regulations of her own University, if she has filed an application under the impression that M.Phil. is equivalent to that of Sanskrit qua the Jadavpur University, there can be no wrong information being furnished by her to the Council so as to enable Mr. Mondal to raise such a point during the course of arguments. The said objection is, accordingly, overruled.5
However, the fact remains that the West Bengal College Service Commission has proceeded to treat the M.Phil. in comparative literature as being a subject alien to the advertisement which, inter alia, requires that a candidate should possess Ph.D. or M.Phil. degree in the concerned subject. In the instant case, the concerned subject is Sanskrit. Considering the aforementioned Certificates of the Jadavpur University and the observations made by this Court, this Court is now of the view that the Commission should "re-adjust their thinking caps" and take a fresh decision in accordance with law.
As a result, the impugned decision dated 9th February, 2010, as contained in Anneuxre-"P-4" at pages 26 and 27, is set aside and the matter is remanded, this time to the highest Body of the Commission, namely, the Chairman of the West Bengal College Service Commission, to take a fresh decision not only in accordance with law but in the light of the observations made herein as well as after duly taking into consideration the Certificates of the Jadavpur University.
The Writ Petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. It goes without saying that so long as the Chairman does not take a decision, one post should be kept vacant.
All parties are to act on a photostat signed copy of this Order on usual undertakings.
( TAPEN SEN , J ) rnc.6