SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Cal) 211

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Dr. Ashis Chakraborty – Petitioner 
Versus 
State of West Bengal And Ors. – Respondents 
WPA 2205 of 2024
Decided On : 05-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, Mr. Aniruddha Mitra
For the Respondent: Mr. Supriya Chattopadhyay, ld. AGP, Ms. Tapati Samanta, Mr. Arindam Ghosh
For the University : Ms. Lina Majumder

Project-based academic staff lack the legal status of regular faculty unless recruited via statutory processes, including mandatory government sanction. Administrative parity in emoluments or past practice cannot override statutory mandates governing the creation and formal filing of substantive internal university posts.

Headnote:(A) University Service Law - Appointment and Regulatory Control - Requirement of prior governmental sanction for creation and appointment to substantive posts - Whether research-based project staff can claim regular status without adherence to statutory recruitment norms. (Paras 32, 33)

(B) Legal Status - Distinction between project-linked academic engagement and substantive internal establishment - Mere functional parity in duties, pay structure, and promotional schemes does not confer the legal character of a regular teacher if the initial appointment lacks mandatory statutory compliance. (Paras 30, 36)

(C) Principles of Interpretation - Estoppel against statute - Administrative practices or past resolutions of executive bodies cannot override clear legislative mandates requiring governmental approval for absorption into the university cadre; any movement from a project-based role to the internal establishment is treated as a fresh induction, requiring full compliance with statutory safeguards. (Paras 35, 36)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, engaged in an externally funded research project, challenged the refusal of authorities to approve an internal transfer to the university's main establishment. The petitioner sought recognition as a permanent regular teacher and the benefit of an enhanced retirement age, contending that his service conditions, including pay and promotion, were identical to those of regular faculty members.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the project-based engagement constitutes a distinct legal regime. The mandatory statutory requirement for prior government approval for all regular university appointments remains a prerequisite that cannot be bypassed, regardless of consistent past administrative practice or similarity in the nature of duties performed.

Issues: Whether personnel engaged in time-bound research projects are legally equivalent to regularly appointed university faculty, and whether the university possesses the autonomy to transfer such staff to its regular establishment without adherence to prescribed governmental sanctioning protocols.

Ratio Decidendi: An employee's inclusion in the university framework is determined by the mode of appointment prescribed by the statute, not by the parity of benefits received. Functional assimilation does not result in legal absorption, and any attempt to circumvent the mandatory statutory approval process for regular faculty positions renders the claim to permanent status unsustainable.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual foundation of the employment dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. petitioner's definition of teacher and statutory scope for transfer. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. university's administrative stance supporting staff transfers. (Para 18 , 19)
4. state claims requirement for prior approval for recruitment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. tripartite administrative nature of the aicrp framework. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
6. statutory priority and mandatory compliance for appointment. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
7. dismissal of petition due to failure of statutory requirements. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order dated 10th November, 2023 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal. Also, directions have been sought to set aside the orders dated 12th October, 2023, 31st December, 2023 and 17th January, 2024.

2. The order dated 10th November, 2023 is for non-approval of the order of transfer of the petitioner dated October 12, 2023, by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, the reason being the petitioner having been appointed under AICRP could have been transferred to a substantive post of transfer in the discipline of Plant Pathology under CoA, Burdwan, BCKV. The other impugned order dated 12th October, 2023 is for making the transfer order of petitioner to the College of Agriculture, Burdwan, subject to the approval by the State Government. Vide the order dated 31st October, 2023, the petitioner‘s service as Officer-in- Charge of All India Co-ordinated Research Projects (AICRPs) on potatoes was voluntary. The other impugned letter dated 17th January, 2024 is to direct the petitioner to hand over charge of Officer-in-Charge, AICRP on potatoes.

3. Alternatively, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondent authority to permit him to continue as the Officer-in-Charge of AICRP of potatoes, treating his retirement age as 65 years. The petitioner was appointed at Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV) with effect from the date of 9th November, 1994. The petitioner says that, as per his appointment letter, he was engaged as a whole-timer and terms and conditions of his service is to be governed under the provisions of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya Act, 1974 (BCKV Act, 1974).

4. The petitioner was appointed initially as a Lecturer (Research in Plant Pathology). He was placed under the AICRP on tropical fruits at Pedong, Darjeeling. From there, he was transferred in the same capacity to the AICRP on Jute and Allied Fiber at Pundibari, Cooch Behar, by an order dated 13th January, 1997. By an order dated 14th March, 2001, the petitioner was promoted to Lecturer (Senior Scale). On 14th December, 2001, he was transferred to a Government sanctioned post at the Registered Research Sub- Station (RRSS) at Shekhampur. From there, he has again been transferred in the AICRP on potatoes by an order dated 17th March, 2006.

5. The petitioner was promoted as the Reader (Research) with effect from 10th November, 2004 (vide order dated 27th December, 2007) and as a Professor (Stage – V) with effect from 10th November, 2012 (vide order dated 18th February, 2021). He has been declared as a permanent staff of the University vide order dated 24th June, 2011 with effect from 10th November, 1997.

6. Furthermore, the petitioner‘s case is that, employment in a post in the University and that in the AICRP is substantially on same terms and conditions and bears no inherent difference. He has stated in the writ petition that, pay scale/pay fixation of all AICRP scientists/teachers is done as per matching order issued by the Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal with concurrence of the Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal, in the same m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top