Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ag (Parimal Mistry vs The Union Of India & Ors.) on 6 June, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
W. P. 22638 (W) OF 2015
06.06.2016
ag (Parimal Mistry -vs- The Union of India & Ors.)
Sl. No.101
Court no.13
Mr. Parimal Mistry - Petitioner (In person)
Ms. Shampa Sarkar - for Visva Bharati
Mr. Subrata Roy Karmakar - for the Respondent no. 5
Ms. Purabi Saha - for the Union of India Affidavit of service and affidavit-in-reply filed in Court today are kept with the record.
The petitioner had participated in the recruitment process for the post of assistant professor of Drama in respect of Visva Bharati University, Santiniketan.
The petitioner appearing in person has drawn the attention of the Court to the advertisement no. 03/2012 and the essential qualifications required in respect of such post.
The petitioner has referred the essential qualifications for the post as appearing in the advertisement and submitted that, he possessed a first class diploma from National School of Drama and that, he has five years of required acclaimed performance in regional and national stage. He has referred to the various documents as evidence in support of his contention. He has also referred to the third condition at page 48 of the writ petition and has submitted that ability to explain the logical reasoning of the subject concerned and adequate knowledge to teach theory in the said discipline will come into play when he is called for interview and allowed to teach the students. 2 The petitioner has also referred to a Division Bench judgement dated December 2, 2015 in M. A. T. 1548 OF 2015 (Parimal Mistry & Ors. -vs- Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan & Ors.) and has submitted that the petitioner is not looking at any discretion from the University and he should be considered as a valid candidate having requisite qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement on the basis of the evidence produced on record. He has also submitted that he has preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgement and order dated December 2, 2015.
The University, the Union of India as well as the private respondent are represented.
The learned advocate for the University has submitted that, the petitioner does not have the requisite qualifications as held by the Division Bench in Their Lordships' judgement and order dated December 2, 2015. Therefore, his candidature cannot be considered. She has submitted that there are other grounds for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner and that, since the petitioner has not argued any other points she refrains from advancing any argument on such aspect.
The learned advocate for the private respondent has submitted that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualifications.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The petitioner had filed a writ petition being W. P. 4005 (W) of 2014 challenging the appointment of a person in respect of a post. The post concerned was assistant professor of drama and theatre. There the petitioner had participated as a Scheduled Caste candidate. The same essential qualifications were required for consideration of such post.
3
The writ petition being W. P. 4005 (W) of 2014 was allowed. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was carried which was disposed of by the judgement and order dated December 2, 2015. The Division Bench in Their Lordships' judgement and order dated December 2, 2015 had considered the same eligibility criteria as involved in the present writ petition as also the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his eligibility to such post. Upon consideration of such materials the Division Bench was pleased to hold as follows:
"The writ petitioner has aspired not on the basis of conventional education but on the basis of the degree obtained by him from the National School of Drama. Before he could apply on that basis he was required to have a first class degree which the writ petitioner admittedly did not have. On the top of that relaxation could not be claimed by him as a matter of right which depended upon the discretion of the University and they must be deemed to have chosen ton refuse to exercise discretion in his favour. It was not pointed out nor demonstrated that the discretion was not exercised along sound principles of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case.
There are two types of eligibility: (a) conventional (b) non-conventional. The writ petitioner claims eligibility on the basis of non-conventional education. In that case he cannot hope to be judged by the standard of 55% laid down for conventional education. On the top of that the writ petitioner did not have consistently good academic record."
Their Lordships have held that the petitioner does not have a first class degree/diploma.
In the present case, the non-conventional essential qualifications required for appointment prescribed by the advertisement are as follows:
"A traditional and a professional artist with highly commendable professional achievement in the concerned subject, who should be or have:
1. A professional artist with first class degree/diploma from National School of Drama or any other such approved Institution in India or abroad;4
2. Five years of regular acclaimed performance in regional/national/international stage with evidence; and
3. Ability to explain the logical reasoning of the subject concerned and adequate knowledge to teach theory with illustrations in said discipline."
In view of the judgement and order dated December 2, 2015 passed in M. A. T. 1548 of 2015, the petitioner does not fulfil the first non-conventional criteria required.
In such circumstances, the petitioner not having the requisite eligibility criteria cannot be considered for the purpose of appointment to the post for which he had aspired.
W. P. No. 22638 (W) of 2015 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished on priority basis.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)