Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subhendu Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 13 February, 2020
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
13.02.2020
rpan / 07
Court No.15 W.P. No. 2233 (W) of 2020
Subhendu Ghosh
- Versus -
The State of West Bengal & Others
Mr. Samim Ahammed,
Mr. Arka Maity,
Ms. Dona Ghosh
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapan Kumar Datta,
Mr. Dipankar Das Gupta
... for the State respondents.
Mr. Kumarjyoti Tewari ... for the UoI.
Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, Ms. Bandana Das, Mr. T. Dhali ...for the College Service Commission.
Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging inter alia a notification dated 26th June, 2018 issued by the Special Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Department of Higher Education.
Mr. Ahammed, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that by the time the selection process was initiated by the West Bengal College Service Commission (in short, the said Commission) new University Grants Commission (in short, UGC) Regulations came into effect on and from 18th July, 2018 which altered the marking pattern of candidates for selection to the post of Assistant Professors. Placing reliance upon the documents at pages 28, 29, 38 and 45 of the writ petition, Mr. Ahammed contends that the selection process was, in fact, initiated with effect from 1st August, 2018, though the advertisement was published by the Controller of Examinations of the said Commission on 16th July, 2018. On the rudiments of such argument Mr. Ahammed prays for an interim protection.
2
Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the said Commission denies and disputes the contention of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner participated in the selection process but could not emerge to be successful. The selection process was initiated by the said Commission on the basis of the Government notification dated 26th June, 2018 which was issued taking into consideration the UGC Regulations of 2016. It has been specified in the advertisement itself that the selection process would be conducted in consonance with the said Government Order dated 26th June, 2018. The amended UGC Regulations were subsequently brought into force and the same have no manner of application in the present selection process.
Mr. Mondal further submits that the marking pattern upon which reliance has been placed by the petitioner in the amended UGC Regulations pertains to short listing of candidates for interview. In the present selection process all the candidates, who applied, were called for the interview and there was no such short listing.
Mr. Datta, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents submits that the Government notification on the basis of which the selection process was initiated was issued in consonance with the subsisting UGC guidelines of 2016.
Mr. Tewari, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Union of India. It does not appear that any different yardstick has been applied in case of the petitioner. All the candidates had been uniformly assessed.
In the said conspectus, the interim order as prayed for, is refused. The respondents are directed to file their affidavits-in-opposition within four weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. 3
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.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)