Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Girish Chandra Gupta, Arijit Banerjee, JJ.
The Governing Body of Bankinm Sardar College & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 24596 & 24023 (W) of 2012; CAN Nos. 4167 & 7694 of 2016 & FMA 614 of 1990
Decided On : 06-10-2016
COLLEGE SERVICE COMMISSION - Recommendation for appointment - Binding nature - Whether once a recommendation is made, the college may request the College Service Commission to revise or change the said recommendation - Whether the college can raise any objection at a later stage if the candidate is a member of the teaching staff of the college and if his application is duly forwarded or routed by the college authorities.
Fact of the Case:
Dr. Prasanta Kumar Sen, an Associate Professor in Botany at Bankim Sardar College, was recommended by the West Bengal College Service Commission for the post of Principal. The college authorities, however, did not appoint him and instead initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. Dr. Sen filed a writ petition challenging the college's inaction and the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Single Judge referred two questions to a larger Bench: (1) whether the recommendation of the College Service Commission for the post of Principal is binding on the college; and (2) whether the college can raise any objection at a later stage if the candidate is a member of the teaching staff of the college and if his application is duly forwarded or routed by the college authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The larger Bench held that the recommendation of the College Service Commission for appointment of a candidate is not binding on the concerned college. The college may have very good reasons for not accepting the recommendation of the Commission, in which case, the Governing Body should communicate its decision with reasons to the Commission and request for a fresh recommendation. It would be the duty of the Commission in that event to make a fresh recommendation in accordance with Regulation 9(2).
Issues: 1. Whether the recommendation of the College Service Commission for the post of Principal is binding on the college? 2. Whether the college can raise any objection at a later stage if the candidate is a member of the teaching staff of the college and if his application is duly forwarded or routed by the college authorities?
Ratio Decidendi: The recommendation of the College Service Commission is only a recommendation and the final authority for appointment is the college. The college may have very good reasons for not accepting the recommendation of the Commission, in which case, the Governing Body should communicate its decision with reasons to the Commission and request for a fresh recommendation. It would be the duty of the Commission in that event to make a fresh recommendation in accordance with Regulation 9(2).
Final Decision: The question No.1 is accordingly answered. The question No.2 need not be answered because that is a mixed question of fact and law of estoppel. The reference is thus disposed of.
Arijit Banerjee, J.
The present reference arises out of an order dated 23rd December, 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court seeking views by a larger Bench on the following questions:
“1. Whether recommendation of the College Service Commission for the post of Principal, or for that matter for any teaching post is binding on the college and mandatory inasmuch as whether once a recommendation is made, the college may request the College Service Commission to revise or change the said recommendation;
2. If the candidate is a member of the teaching staff of the college and if his application is duly forwarded or routed by the college authorities whether the college can raise any objection at a later stage.”
2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case are as follows:
Dr. Prasanta Kumar Sen, an Associate Professor in Botany working with Bankim Sardar College applied for the post of Principal in different non-government colleges in terms of advertisements issued by the West Bengal College Service Commission. Though there are allegations that Dr. Sen succeeded in obtaining a recommendation by resorting to malpractice but the fact remains that on 14th August, 2012 the West Bengal College Service Commission recommended the name of Dr. Sen for appointment to the post of Principal which fell vacant consequent to retirement of Dr. Tapas Kumar Banerjee. We are not taking note of the allegations as regards mal-practices allegedly adopted by Dr. Sen because that is a question which may be taken into account by the learned Trial Court. The recommendation dated 14th August, 2012 was received by the concerned college on 31st August, 2012. Dr. Sen, however, by a letter dated 14th August, 2012 had informed the college that he was willing to join with immediate effect. He was not allowed to join within a period of one month or at all.
3. Needless to mention that he already was an Associate Professor and has been continuing as such.
4. By a letter dated 6th March,2012 attention of the teacher-in-charge of the concerned college was drawn by the auditors to certain financial irregularities allegedly committed by the teacher-in-charge. The teacher-in-charge at that point of time was none other than Dr. Sen himself. Further financial irregularities were brought to the notice of the Principal of the concerned college by a letter dated 3rd September, 2012. The Governing Body, presumably in that view of the matter, in its meeting dated 21st September, 2012 took the following decisions:-
“In view of the above discussion on the observations of the Statutory Audit Report 2010-11 and the Internal Audit Report 2011-12 the Governing Body is of the prima facie view that the college accounts was fraught with financial irregularities which cannot be ignored by the Governing Body and such financial irregularities can be attributed mainly to Dr. Prasanta Kumar Sen, Associate Professor of Botany as he served as the Teacher-in-charge of the college from 1st September 2010 to 31st August 2011.
The Governing Body unanimously resolved as follows:-
For purpose of proper investigation into such irregularities disciplinary proceedings be initiated against Dr. Prasanta Kr Sen, as early as possible, and authorizes the President to take steps in this regard and place the same before the next GB meeting for consideration.”
5. In the selfsame meeting the governing body decided to keep the recommendation dated 14th August, 2012 in abeyance until disciplinary proceedings were completed. A charge sheet was issued on 20th October, 2012, followed by an appointment of an enquiry officer who we understand has completed the proceedings and has also filed his report. The report is lying in a sealed cover and has not as yet been opened consequent to an order dated 23rd May, 2016 passed in AST 142 of 2016 (Bankim Sardar College & Ors. vs. Smt. Swapna Pal and Ors.) to which Dr. Sen is not a party. That we understand is a separate proceeding by two professors venti
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
