Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Dr. Sandeep Kumar Bhakat vs Union Of India & Ors.) on 16 December, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 W. P. 29196 (W) OF 2016 16.12.2016 (Dr. Sandeep Kumar Bhakat -vs- Union of India & Ors.) No.17 urt no.13 Ms. Debapriya Gupta - for the petitioner Mr. Pradip Kr. Das - for Union of India The petitioner apprehends that a selection process for the post of assistant professor in Mathematics undertaken by Visva-Bharati University is likely to be cancelled and fresh selection process is likely to be undertaken.
The learned advocate for the petitioner refers to the advertisement issued by the Visva-Bharati University dated November 20, 2014 and submits that, the petitioner had participated in such selection process by making application to the University authorities on December 22, 2014. She submits that, the petitioner is the only candidate for such post. The application was not processed and, therefore, the petitioner had to apply under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In response to such application, the University authorities by a communication dated June 30, 2015 had informed the petitioner that the University authorities had received the application of the petitioner and the short-listing process is going on. She submits that, now the petitioner has come to learn that the University authorities have decided to re-advertise for the post although the application of the petitioner is still pending.
The Union of India is represented. None appears for the University authorities in spite of service of notice.
Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the record. 2 A candidate has a right to participate in a selection process and to be treated fairly. It is not open to such candidate to say that the selection process cannot be cancelled.
Apparently, the University authorities have decided to advertise afresh as submitted on behalf of the petitioner. A re-advertisement would necessarily mean that, the existing selection process is cancelled. No law has been cited on behalf of the petitioner to suggest that, the existing selection process must be continued with and that, it cannot be cancelled.
In the facts of the present case, I do not find any right of the petitioner to have been infringed warranting interference in a writ petition.
W. P. No. 29196 (W) of 2016 is dismissed without any order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)