IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
RCCIIT Staff Association & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.A. No. 547 of 2020 With W.P.A. No. 4925 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2023
RCC INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - PUBLIC OFFICE - OFFICE OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND REGISTRAR - APPOINTMENT - SELECTION PROCESS - AGE RELAXATION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - LOCUS STANDI.
Fact of the Case:
WPA 547 of 2020 (WP-1) was filed by a Staff Association seeking a writ of quo warranto directing the private respondent to vacate the post of Deputy Registrar at RCC Institute of Information Technology (the Institute). WPA 4925 of 2021 (WP-2) was filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to initiate a fresh selection process for the post of Registrar at the Institute after cancelling the impugned advertisements for the said post.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Institute is an autonomous society and its actions are amenable to judicial review. However, the office of Deputy Registrar is not a public office and therefore, a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued. The Court also held that the petitioner in WP-2, by not appearing for the interview, placed himself beyond the zone of consideration and therefore, cannot claim a mandamus.
Issues: 1. Whether the Institute is an autonomous society and its actions are amenable to judicial review? 2. Whether the office of Deputy Registrar is a public office? 3. Whether a writ of quo warranto can be issued to remove the private respondent from the post of Deputy Registrar? 4. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the authorities to initiate a fresh selection process for the post of Registrar? 5. Whether the petitioner in WP-2 has a locus standi to maintain the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Institute is an autonomous society and its actions are amenable to judicial review, relying on the decision of a co-ordinate bench in WP No. 13874(W) of 2016 delivered on 13.11.2019 in the case of Dr. Gautam Pal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2. The Court held that the office of Deputy Registrar is not a public office, relying on the decisions of co-ordinate benches in Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur Teachers’ Association & Anr. vs. Bengal Engineering & Science University, Shibpur & Ors. reported at (2010) 4 CHN 89 (Cal) and Taraknath Das vs. Union of India & Ors. reported at 2016 Lab IC 2644. 3. The Court held that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued to remove the private respondent from the post of Deputy Registrar, as the office is not a public office. 4. The Court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the authorities to initiate a fresh selection process for the post of Registrar, as the petitioner in WP-2, by not appearing for the interview, placed himself beyond the zone of consideration. 5. The Court held that the petitioner in WP-2 has a locus standi to maintain the writ petition, as he is a member of the Staff Association which is a registered society.
Final Decision: WP-1 and WP-2 were dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
1. WPA 547 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “WP-1”) has been filed by a Staff Association praying for issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing the private respondent namely Sandip Saha to vacate the post of Deputy Registrar at RCC institute of Information Technology (hereinafter referred to as “the Institute”).
2. WPA 4925 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “WP-2”) has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to initiate a fresh selection process for the post of Registrar at the Institute after cancelling the impugned advertisements for the said post.
3. The petitioner in WP-2, while working as an Assistant Professor of an Engineering College submitted an application seeking appointment to the post of Registrar at the said Institute pursuant to an advertisement published in the website of the Institute. The petitioner received a call letter for appearing in the interview for the post of Registrar. Petitioner claims to have learnt that the selection/ interview would be an eye wash and the entire exercise was intended to give appointment to Sandip Saha, the private respondent, who, according to the petitioner is an influential non-teaching employee of the Institute. In the initial advertisement, it was stipulated that the maximum age for the post of Registrar would be as per Government Rules. However, in the corrigendum issued subsequently, it was stated that the age of the intending candidates should not be more than 40 years as on 01.11.2020 relaxable for specially qualified and experienced candidates.
4. The case of the petitioner in WP-1 is that the Institute is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and the office of the Registrar is a public office. The petitioner claims that Sandip Saha, the private respondent was initially appointed as an Office Assistant purely on contractual basis with a consolidated pay. Subsequently he was appointed as Assistant Programmer on contractual basis. Thereafter, the private respondent was appointed as Junior Administrative Officer on 01.08.2008. The private respondent was appointed as Deputy Registrar sometimes in October, 2015 without any advertisement being issued therefor. On or about 30.10.2019 the then Registrar of the Institute tendered his resignation and the private respondent was given the additional charge of the post of Registrar with effect from 01.11.20119. The petitioner claims to have come to know for the first time after the Government issued the order dated 24.12.2019 wherein the name of the private respondent was included as a member of the Board of Management of the society in the capacity of Deputy Registrar of the Institute. The petitioner claims that the private respondent was not eligible for the post of Deputy Registrar or even the post of Junior Administrative Officer and the private respondent should be reverted to the post of Assistant Programmer.
5. The Institute contested the aforesaid writ petitions by filing Affidavits-in-Opposition. The case of the Institute is that it is a self financing Engineering College established under a registered society namely RCCIT. As per the guidelines of AICTE, the governing body of the Institute is constituted by the Board of Management comprising members including those nominated by the State Government, affiliating university and the AICTE. The entire remuneration of the staff of the Institute and other recurring expenditure is paid from the funds of the Institute and the State Government does not exercise deep and all pervasive control over the administrative, financial and functional aspects of the Institute. It was specifically stated that the post of Registrar is administrative in nature and as such no writ of quo warranto can thus lie. It was specifically denied that the office of Registrar is a public office. It was stated that the Institute has the authority to create posts and duly appoint candidates for such po
Dhananjay Malik and Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.
Food Corporation of India and Ors. vs. Bhanu Lodh & Ors.
Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Renu and Ors. vs. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari & Anr.
Mani Subrat Jain & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Water Supply Employees’ Association and others
Gambhirdan K. Gandhvi vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.
National Textile Corporation Limited and Ors. vs. M/s. Haribox Swalram & Ors.
Maganvai Iswarbhai Patel vs. Union of India and Anr.
The University of Mysore And Anr. vs. C. D. Govinda Rao and Anr.
B.C. Mylarappa @ Chikkamylarappa vs. R. Venkatsubbaiah & Ors.
Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke And Ors. vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors.
Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors.
Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and others
Bhabani Adhikari vs. West Bengal State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
V. Sasitharan and Ors. vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu
The office of Deputy Registrar of RCC Institute of Information Technology is not a public office and therefore, a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued to remove the private respondent from the post ....
Writ jurisdiction does not extend to private institutions unless they perform public functions; employment disputes in such institutions are governed by private contracts.
The principles of res judicata apply to public interest litigation, and a second writ petition challenging the same appointment on similar grounds is not maintainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a writ petition to be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the decision under challenge must involve a public elem....
The court ruled that the appointment of the Registrar was valid as it followed the proper selection process, and the petitioner lacked locus standi and delayed in filing the writ petition.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.