The Executive Council, in exercising its discretion to accept or reject the recommendation of the Screening Committee for re-employment of a teacher, must act in accordance with the provisions of Rule 159 and must take into account only the relevant factors specified in the rule.

( 1 ) IN this writ application, a resolution taken by the Executive Council of the Rabindra Bharati University, on 16 July, 2001, is under challenge. By the said resolution the said Executive Council rejected the application of the petitioner for re-employment. The petitioner herein, Dr. Nirmal Kumar Das, made an application under the provisions of Rule 159 of the First Statute (supplements) under the Rabindra Bharati University Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rule 159') for the said re-employment. Under the said provisions if any teacher wishes extension of his service after the completion of his full term of employment, then the said teacher is entitled to make an application before the concerned authority for extension or re-employment and on the basis of the said application the authority concerned decides as to whether the teacher in question should be re-emplyed. The provisions of the said Rule 159 for re-employment would be dealt with a little later in this judgment. To my mind, the interpretation of the provisions of the said Rule 159 is one of the fundamental aspect of this case.

( 2 ) SINCE the petitioner has questioned the legal validity of the said resolution of the concerned authority of the Rabindra Bharati University whereby the application of the writ petitioner for re-employment was rejected by the said authority, it is somewhat necessary and useful to consider the chain of events that had taken place before passing of the said resolution by the concerned authority in the case of the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein, Dr. Nirmal Kumar Das was appointed as a Lecturer in Rabindra Bharati University in July 1973, the said appointment as made by the Registrar of Rabindra Bharati University by his letter dated 4 April, 1972. The petitioner commenced his employment as such lecturer on and from 1 July, 1973, in Rabindra Bharati University. His service was confirmed as lecturer on 28 March, 1980. Thereafter, the petitioner in March 1980, to be precise, on 20 March 1980, was promoted to the post of Reader in Medieval Bengali and Literature. On the basis of a resolution of the Executive Council of the said University dated 16 March, 1986, the petitioner was appointed as the Professor of the said University with effect from 1 January, 1986. Within a period of three years on 16 August, 1989, the petitioner was appointed as Dean of the Faculty Council for Arts of the said University. The normal age of retirement of the teachers of the University is 60 years.

( 3 ) AS aforesaid, a teacher may, however, apply for re-employment and under the provisions of the said Rule 159, the Executive Council of the University may give re-employment to such a teacher of the University who attains the age of sixty years considering his academic performance particularly during the last five years preceding the date of his super annuation.

( 4 ) ON or about 23 June, 2000, the petitioner made application for his re-employment as the petitioner was to complete his 60 years of age, in other words, as the petitioner would attain the age of his retirement from his service in the Rabindra Bharati University on 31 January, 2001. Since, in my opinion, the interpretation of the provisions of the said Rule 159 is one of the fundamental issues in this proceeding, the said Rule 159 made under the provisions of the Rabindra Bharati University Act, 1981 is set out below: -159. A whole-time teacher of the University enjoying University Grants Commission scale of pay as approved by the State Government and introduced since January 1, 1973 shall retire after the completion of 60 years of age: provided that the Executive Council may give re-employment to such a teacher of the University beyond the age of 60 years considering his academic performance particularly during the last 5 years preceding the date of his super annuation. On receipt of a written application for re-employment along with a self-assessment statement,