Back
2021 Supreme(Cal) 289
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AMRITA SINHA, J.
Abhik Kusari – Appellant
Versus
The University of Calcutta and Others – Respondents
W.P.O. No. 48 of 2019
Decided On : 07-09-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Durga Prasad Dutta, Mr. Souvik Sen, Mr. Somanta Ganguly, Ms. Aditi Dutta.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kishore Datta, Mr. Chayan Gupta, Mr. Sandip Dasgupta, Mr. S. Siddiqui.
Point of Law: In absence of any prescribed provision of law, is required to record the reasons for either selecting or not selecting a candidate, then the same will be an additional burden on the Committee.
Headnote:
Grant of benefit in terms of the Scheme - University invited applications from eligible university officers for Career Advancement/Promotion Scheme - candidature of the petitioner was duly considered by the Selection Committee which was constituted for the said purpose. The Selection Committee considered the relative merit of the prospective candidates and came to an opinion that the petitioner is not suitable for being extended the said benefit. The petitioner has not alleged mala-fide on the part of the Selection Committee. The petitioner has however alleged that there has been discriminatory action on the part of the respondents without assigning any reasons. The petitioner has alleged that though he possessed the required eligibility criteria to avail the benefit of the Scheme, but the same has not been allowed in his case.
Finding of the Court:
There are several candidates who are rejected. If the Selection Committee is required to record reasons for every selection or rejection and the same is brought before Court for judicial review, then the selection process will get delayed and there may be no end to litigations. In the absence of a rule or in the absence of allegation of mala-fide, the selection process has to be taken as sacrosanct. The petitioner has not been able to produce any rule or provision of law which mandates the Selection Committee to record reasons for not extending the benefit to him. Only if the action of the Committee is tainted with mala-fide or malice is alleged, can the action of the Committee be open for judicial review - Selection Committee being an expert body constituted for the purpose of assessment of candidates for grant of such benefit thought it fit not to extend the benefit to the petitioner. In the absence of a specific rule requiring the Committee to record reasons, the action of the Committee in not recording the reasons for not granting the benefit to the petitioner cannot be faulted.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
AMRITA SINHA, J.
1. The petitioner is serving as the Accounts Officer in the University of Calcutta. He joined service in the University on 10th September, 2008. On and from 9th January, 2015 in addition to his regular duty as an Accounts Officer he is also functioning as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the University.
2. By a notification dated 14th March, 2018 the University invited applications from eligible university officers for Career Advancement/Promotion Scheme (‘the Scheme’ for short). The petitioner applied in response to the said notification. An opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner for appearing before the Standing Committee for the purpose of considering his candidature for grant of benefit in terms of the Scheme. As there was no communication from the end of the University as to whether his application was allowed or not, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition with a prayer for grant of benefit of the Scheme to him.
3. The University of Calcutta has filed an affidavit in opposition to the writ petition disclosing that the petitioner appeared before the Standing Committee of the University but the Standing Committee did not find the candidature of the petitioner to be acceptable. The performance of the petitioner was duly assessed by the Standing Committee and the same was not found satisfactory. The petitioner did not appear to be a suitable candidate and accordingly the petitioner’s application has been rejected.
4. It has further been mentioned that traditionally, only successful candidates are communicated about the acceptance of their prayer and regarding grant of benefit to them. As the petitioner’s case stood rejected, accordingly the same was not intimated to him.
5. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the University of Calcutta submits that the decision to extend the benefit of the Scheme is an administrative decision. No reasons are required to be recorded if the prayer of an aspiring candidate is either accepted or rejected. There is no statutory provision for recording the reasons for rejection at the time of considering the prayer of an applicant for grant of benefit in terms of the Scheme. The Rules of the University also does not require reasons to be recorded or communicated to the candidate who has applied for obtaining the benefit of the Scheme.
6. It has been submitted that the petitioner was directed to appear for a hearing. The Standing Committee assessed the performance of the petitioner for the purpose of extending the benefit to him, but according to the Standing Committee the petitioner’s performance was not satisfactory and he was not a suitable candidate, as such, the benefit has not been extended to him.
7. In reply to the submission of the leaned Advocate General, the learned advocate for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that had the performance of the petitioner not been satisfactory, the University would not have imposed upon the petitioner additional duty of acting as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, which the petitioner is performing satisfactorily, without any adverse remark, since 2015. It has further been mentioned that there is no adverse remark in his ACR. The petitioner prays for grant of the benefit of the Scheme to him.
8. In support of his case the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Shanti Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 22
2. T.P. Senkumar, IPS vs. Union of India and Others, (2017) 6 SCC 801
3. Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 4 SCC 144
4. Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Maddula Ratnavalli and Others, (2007) 6 SC 81
9. The respondents in their support have relied upon the following decisions:
1. National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and Others, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481
2. K.A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 515
3. B.C. Mylarappa @ Dr. Chikkamylarappa vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubb
