Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1136
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUBRATA TALUKDAR, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, JJ.
Md. Reja Ahammad – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
MAT No. 74 of 2023, IA No. CAN 1 of 2023
Decided On : 30-06-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Usha Maity, Anita Khatri, Sakya Maity.
For the Respondents: Swapan Banerjee, Subhrangsu Panda, Saugata Mitra, Ina Bhattacharyya, Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Sagnik Chatterjee.
The Selection Committee's discretion in assessing the suitability of a candidate for appointment as an Assistant Professor is not subject to judicial review in the absence of mala fide or violation of any statutory rule.
Headnote:
UNIVERSITY APPOINTMENTS - SIDHO KANHO BIRSHA UNIVERSITY ACT, 2010 - SECTION 29(1), 29(2), 30(1), 30(2), 30(3) - SELECTION COMMITTEE'S DISCRETION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - MALA-FIDE OR STATUTORY VIOLATION - ONE MAN PANEL - VALIDITY - APPROVAL - LEGAL REQUIREMENTS - ELIGIBILITY - COURT'S INTERVENTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a sole candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science (OBC-A category) at Sidho Kanho Birsha University, Purulia, was not recommended for appointment despite having the required qualifications. He challenged the University's decision in a writ petition, alleging non-compliance with the amended Sections 29(1), 29(2), 30(1), and 30(2) of the West Bengal University Laws Amendment Act, 2011, and sought a direction to the University to award him marks and recommend his name for the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Selection Committee has the power to formulate its own criteria to assess the suitability of a candidate and that this criteria cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court also found that there was no mala-fide or violation of any statutory rule in the selection process and that the University had abided by the guidelines laid down for the appointment of an Assistant Professor.
Issues: 1. Whether the University complied with the amended Sections 29(1), 29(2), 30(1), and 30(2) of the West Bengal University Laws Amendment Act, 2011, in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science (OBC-A category). 2. Whether the appellant was eligible for the post and whether he was awarded marks in accordance with his qualifications and experience. 3. Whether the Selection Committee's decision not to recommend the appellant for appointment was mala fide or in violation of any statutory rule.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Selection Committee has the power to formulate its own criteria to assess the suitability of a candidate, and this criteria cannot be subjected to judicial review. 2. In the absence of mala fide or violation of any statutory rule in the selection process, no interference by the court is called for. 3. The University had abided by the guidelines laid down for the appointment of an Assistant Professor, and there was no evidence of mala fide or statutory violation in the Selection Committee's decision not to recommend the appellant for appointment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the University's decision not to recommend him for appointment was justified and that there was no merit in his challenge to the selection process.
JUDGMENT :
SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2022 passed by an Hon’ble Single Bench in WPA 24657 of 2015.
2. Through the impugned Judgment the Hon’ble Single Bench has rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner praying for a mandate upon the Sidho Kanho Birsha University, Purulia (hereinafter referred to as the University) to award marks to the writ petitioner and to recommend his name for the post of Assistant Professor in political science in the category of OBC-A.
3. The appellant in the instant appeal was the writ petitioner and having his prayer rejected has preferred the instant appeal.
4. The fact of the instant lis is that initially an advertisement was published by the said University on 26.11.2011 inviting application from eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professor along with other posts. Among the said posts which were advertised to be filled up there was one post of Assistant Professor in Political Science reserved for the OBC-A category. Thereafter once again another advertisement was published on the 26.06.2014 for filling up the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science reserved for the OBC-A category. On both the occasions the writ petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in political science reserved for the OBC-A category but ultimately the writ petitioner has not been selected for the said post and no reason has been assigned for that.
5. The writ petitioner preferred an application under Right to Information Act, 2005. In reply to the said application initially it was informed that the writ petitioner was eligible for the post of Assistant Professor even if he appeared alone in the selection test but ultimately the writ petitioner was not recommended by the selection Committee for appointment.
6. A writ petition being WP No. 33368 (W) of 2014 was filed by the writ petitioner for non-supply of information regarding the previous selection. An order dated 08.05.2015 was passed by the Hon’ble Court directing the Registrar of the University to consider and dispose of the prayer of the petitioner. The writ petitioner was granted liberty to pursue his remedy, in respect of his non-selection, in accordance with law.
7. In compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Court the writ petitioner was informed by the Registrar of the said University through a letter dated 20.05.2015 that the duly constituted selection committee found no suitable candidate for the post of Assistant Professor during the interview held on 29.08.2014. Thereafter on 01.06.2015 the writ petitioner prayed before the Public Information Officer for providing information in respect of his queries which were made through the application under the Right to Information Act. The Registrar of the said University being the SPIO informed the writ petitioner that there was no bar for selection whether the candidate appeared alone or not, but selection in the post of Assistant Professor is the absolute prerogative of the selection committee and the name of the writ petitioner was not recommended either for the general post or for the reserved post.
8. From the documents furnished by the SPIO it reveals in the score sheet the writ petitioner was not awarded any mark in respect of his M.Phil degree and zero mark has been awarded in respect of his teaching experience though the said writ petitioner is said to have three years of teaching experience as part time lecturer. In addition only 5 marks have been awarded in respect of overall knowledge and skill out of 15 marks while the writ petitioner has qualified both the National Eligibility Test (NET) and State Eligibility Test (SET).
9. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner during his exhaustive submission has submitted that the Hon’ble Single Bench has failed to recognize the applicability of the amended Sections 29(1) & 29(2) as well as Section 30(1) & 30 (2) of the West Bengal Univers
