Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Two trustee in Dipannita Pal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors. on 3 February, 1999Matching Fragments
2. The trustees i.e. the respondent No.6, R. N. Malllck as also the remaining two trustees viz., the respondent Nos.7 and 8 have filed their affidavit-in-opposltlon, as also the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3. The affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos.7 and 8 to the main affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.G. The writ petitioner also filed affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said respondent No.6.
3. Supplementary affidavit with the leave of court was filed by the respondent No.6.
4. It must also be stated here that R. N. Mallick, respondent No.G took out originating summons and by an order dated 17.9.98 passed by His Lordship Justice P. C. Ghosh ex-parte interim stay was granted, staying the effect of the letter dated 31.8.98 Issued by the remaining two trustees, respondents Nos.7 and 8 recommending the name of the petitioner for admission in the said medical course.
5. By an order dated 23.9,98 a Division Bench of this High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the said ad- interim order passed in the originating summons suit. The Division Bench granted leave to the petitioner herein to prefer the said appeal as she was not made a party to the said proceedings' but was held to be a person aggrieved by the said order. The Division Bench, however, has not gone into the merits of the matter. The Division Bench while staying the order appealed from observed as under:
8. Reliance has been placed upon certain judgments, reference to which shall be made at an appropriate juncture.
9. On behalf of the State, Mr. Pradyut Kr. Nandl submitted that the dispute is really one inter se the trustees with respect to the selection of the petitioner and in view of the communication dated 28.8.98 received from the respondent No.6 the Principal of the College in question had informed the remaining two trustees, respondent Nos.7 and 8 when they met him in his Chamber about the same and thereupon, the respondents No. 7 and 8 had informed the Principal that the matter would be sorted out between the parties and their decision would be communicated to the Principal. in short, it is the submission of the State respondents that the question is not one of refusal to admit as alleged but of the inter se disputes between the parlies which need to be resolved. Whatever decision is ultimately taken by the trustees, the College would act in accordance therewith. The matter, it was submitted Is subjudice in the present writ petition as also in the Originating Summons Suit and therefore, no action has been taken with regard to the admission of the petitioner.
12. Mr. Milan Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents No.7 and 8 who are the other trustees have supported the case of the petitioner and also traversed the various allegations made in the affidavlt-ln-opposition filed by the respondent No.6. It was the submission of Mr. Milan Bhatlacherjee that in August. 1998, the Principal of the Medical College in question by his letter dated 12.8.98 requested the respondent No.6 (who was also the Secretary of the trust in question) to nominate one candidate for admission in MBBS course. A meeting was held pursuant to a notice dated 17th August, 1998 Issued by R. N. Malllck and all the three trustees participated in the said meeting held on 20th August. 1998, wherein it was resolved that an interview shall be held on 27th August, 1998 at the office of the SamaJ for selecting a candidate who will be nominated for admission in the said Medical College. in the said meeting, the modalities of the selection were also framed and decided by the trustees. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the trustees of B. C. Dey trust held on 20th August. 1998 being annexure 'B' to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 and 8. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submitted that as decided in the aforesaid meeting, 22 candidates appeared at the interview held on 27th August, 1998 and the petitioner herein secured the highest marks. A copy of the score sheet has been marked as annexure 'C' lo the affidavit-in-opposition. The respondent No.6, however, did not either sign the said score sheet nor record his note of dissent to annexure 'C'. The action of the respondent No.6 in Issuing the letter dated 28lh August, 1998 to the Principal, it was submitted was not depletion of correct state of affairs and that the meeting scheduled to be held on 29lh August, 1998 for making the final selection was postponed at the instance of Mr. R. N. Malllck by a letter dated 28th August, 1998 on the ground of his personal 111 health. The remaining two trustees thereupon Issued a notice dated 29.8.98 informing that there would be an emergent meeting on 30.8.98. The said notice was said to have been served upon the respondent No.6 by hand and even then he did not appear in the meeting held on 30.8.98. Copy of the receipt of notice Is annexure 'F' to the affldavit-in-opposition of the respondents Nos.7 and 8. The remaining two trustees deckled lo select the petitioner who had secured the highest marks at the interview held on 27.8.98 and thereafter by their communication dated 31.8.98, the two trustees viz., respondent Nos.7 and 8 communicated their decision to the Principal of the Medical College in question with regard to the selection of the petitioner for the admission in the Medical College for the year 1998.