Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Dr. Pranab Kumar Karmakar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 November, 2013

Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee

Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee

ORDER SHEET

                        APOT No.190 of 2013
                        GA No.1403 of 2013
                        WITH
                        WP No.645 of 2012
                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                       Civil Appellate Jurisdiction



                              DR. PRANAB KUMAR KARMAKAR
                                     Versus
                              THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, ACJ

  The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK

  Date : 18th November, 2013.


                                    Mr. Probal Mukherjee, Mr. Suhrid Sur for the
                                    appellant.
                                    Mrs. Reshmi Ghosh for University of Calcutta.
                                    Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharyya, Ms.Tapati Samanta
                                    for respondent nos. 8, 9 and 10.

The Court : The writ petitioner being the appellant abovenamed claiming to be holder of Ph.D qualification prayed for appropriate designation as Professor, coupled with the pay attached to the said designation. The learned Single Judge, in His Lordship's well-reasoned judgment and order, disposed of the writ petition by asking the University to reconsider the issue to find out whether he would be entitled to the appropriate benefit. His Lordship asked the University Authority to pass a reasoned order.

2

Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the instant appeal on April 11, 2013. Since then the matter is time to time adjourned. Today when the matter is called on, learned Counsel appearing for the University has drawn our attention to page 160/161 of the application for stay wherefrom we find, the University already passed a reasoned order inter alia rejecting his claim.

The judgment and order impugned has already been acted upon. If the appellant is still aggrieved, he has his remedy in law challenging the reasoned order passed by the University. We do not find any scope of interference. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

(ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, ACJ.) (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) pa