Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 907
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SHAMPA SARKAR, JJ.
Mriganka Mondal - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Asitabha Das & Ors - Respondent
FMA 823, 1285 of 2013
Decided On : 12-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Ms. Madhuparan Kanrar, Mr. Siddhartha Roy, Mr. Amitava Choudhuri, Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the UGC 2010 Regulations in the appointment process for academic staff in universities and colleges, and the court's authority to intervene in cases of illegal appointment processes that do not comply with statutory regulations.
Headnote:
Librarian Appointment - UGC Regulations - [University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (UGC 2010 Regulations)] - [3.2.0, 3.3.0, 3.3.1, 4.5.0, Appendix III] - The court found the University's appointment process for the librarian to be illegal as it did not adhere to the UGC 2010 Regulations, which were mandated by the Deputy Secretary's letter and the University's own notice. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the UGC Regulations and held that the University's fault in not amending its Act and Statutes to align with the UGC Regulations did not excuse its non-compliance.
Fact of the Case:
The University issued a notice for the recruitment of a Librarian with specified qualifications. The selection process resulted in the appointment of Mriganka as the librarian, which was challenged by Asitabha through a writ petition. The court found the appointment process to be illegal as it did not adhere to the UGC 2010 Regulations, and upheld the judgment setting aside Mriganka's appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the University's appointment process for the librarian to be illegal as it did not adhere to the UGC 2010 Regulations, which were mandated by the Deputy Secretary's letter and the University's own notice. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the UGC Regulations and held that the University's fault in not amending its Act and Statutes to align with the UGC Regulations did not excuse its non-compliance.
Issues: The issues included the non-compliance with the UGC 2010 Regulations in the appointment process, the eligibility of the appointed candidate, and the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Standing Committee in conducting the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the University's appointment process for the librarian was illegal due to non-compliance with the UGC 2010 Regulations, and emphasized the importance of adhering to the UGC Regulations. The court also rejected the argument that the appointment should be saved based on equitable considerations, stating that compassion, grace, or charity cannot color the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment setting aside Mriganka's appointment and directed him to step down as librarian by the end of October, 2018, after which the University was to comply with the direction of the learned Judge.
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Intending to recruit a Librarian, Kalyani University (hereafter the University) issued an employment notice dated December 17, 2010 (hereafter the said notice). The minimum qualifications which aspiring candidates were required to possess were specified therein, reading as follows:
“Minimum Qualifications for Librarian
(i) A Master’s Degree in Library Science/Information Science/documentation with at least 55% marks or its equivalent Grade of B in the UGC seven points scale and consistently good academic record set out in the UGC Regulations published in the Gazette of India on 18.09.2010.
(ii) At least thirteen years as Deputy Librarian in a University library or eighteen years’ experience as a College Librarian.
(iii) Evidence of innovative library service and organization of public work.
(iv) Minimum API score of 400 in Research & Academic Contribution (as per Appendix III, Table VIII(c) of the said UGC Regulation). [Refer Additional Information (d)].
(v) Desirable: A M.Phil./Ph.D. degree in Library Science/Information Science/documentation/achieves and manuscript-keeping.”
2. Power of the University to relax the stipulations regarding qualifications in case of candidates possessing exceptionally good academic records and/or outstanding capabilities of teaching/research/administration, if so recommended by the Standing Committee on specific grounds, was reserved. The applications of the aspiring candidates were required to reach the University on or before January 17, 2011.
3. Only 4 (four) candidates responded to the said notification including Sri MrigankaMondal (hereafter Mriganka) and Dr. Asitabha Das (hereafter Asitabha). Mriganka, while applying for the post of librarian, was working as the librarian of North Bengal University (hereafter the NBU) whereas Asitabha was working as the Deputy Librarian of the University. The selection process that followed at the instance of the University, after receipt of applications from the 4 (four) aspiring candidates, culminated in Mriganka being selected and appointed on the post of librarian of the University. Learning of Mriganka’s selection and issuance of appointment letter in his favour on March 1, 2012, Asitabha objected to the same vide his representation dated March 2, 2012. Since such representation did not yield any result, Asitabha invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by presenting W.P. 5641 (W) of 2012 on March 20, 2012 seeking, inter alia, orders of cancellation of the appointment and joining letter of Mriganka, and declaring the post of librarian of the University as vacant and to fill up the same upon constituting a proper selection committee as per Government notification.
4. The writ petition was vehemently opposed by the University as well as Mriganka by filing counter affidavits. Upon exchange of affidavits, the writ petition came up for consideration before a learned Judge of this Court. On a contested hearing, His Lordship allowed W.P. 5641 (W) 2012 with costs of Rs.34,000/-, to be borne by the University, by a judgment and order dated August 8, 2012. The appointment of Mriganka was set aside, the post of librarian was declared vacant and liberty was granted to the University and its officers to fill up such post in accordance with law. On the prayer of Mriganka, the learned Judge stayed the operation of the order for 3 (three) weeks.
5. It is this judgment and order dated August 8, 2012 that left the University and its officers as well as Mriganka deeply aggrieved; hence, separate appeals were carried therefrom by the University and its officers (FMA 1285 of 2013) and by Mriganka (FMA 823 of 2013).
6. Upon hearing an application for stay filed by the University in its appeal, a coordinate bench by an ad-interim order dated August 28, 2012 had continued the order of stay passed by the learned Judge until further orders. A subsequ
