245

26.08.2025 Court No.15 SK IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION WPA 16953 of 2024 Dr. Milan Mandal Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Samim Ahammed, Mr. Arka Maity, Ms. Ambiya Khatun … for the Petitioner.

Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, Ms. Bandana Mondal, Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Mrs. Ina Bhattacharyya, Mrs. Mithu Singha Mohapatra …for the West Bengal College Service Commission.

Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Ms. Tanusree Ghosh …for the Union of India.

Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta …for the U.G.C.

The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Principal in a State-aided College in West Bengal. He applied for the said post pursuant to Advertisement No. 2/2024 issued by the West Bengal College Service Commission.

By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged various aspects of the selection process adopted by the College Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Principal.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “UGC Regulations, 2018”) contemplate preparation of a shortlist of eligible candidates, the College Service Commission, in deviation from the said Regulations, permitted all applicants to participate in the interview without undertaking any shortlisting exercise.

During the course of hearing, the College Service Commission submitted that, as against approximately 90 notified vacancies for the post of Principal, only 410 applications were received. In view of such comparatively limited response, the Commission considered it unnecessary to undertake a shortlisting exercise and accordingly permitted all candidates to participate in the interview. Having regard to this factual position, the petitioner has not pressed the issue of shortlisting.

The petitioner further contends that the qualifications prescribed in the impugned advertisement for the post of Principal are violative of the UGC Regulations, 2018. In particular, reliance is placed on Note–2 of Clause (f) of the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement.

The petitioner has specifically expressed his reservation with regard to Clause (f) of Note–2 appended to the advertisement. It is submitted that the UGC Regulations, 2018 do not permit ad-hoc, temporary, or contractual service to be considered for appointment to the post of Principal.

It is further submitted that the UGC Regulations, 2018 mandate that the selection process must incorporate transparency and a credible methodology. According to the petitioner, the College Service Commission, while publishing the panel, does not disclose the marks obtained by individual candidates in the selection process. The petitioner contends that transparency requires such disclosure so that the merit of each candidate can be objectively assessed.

The petitioner has also urged that the College Service Commission selects candidates solely on the basis of their performance in the interview. Such a process, it is argued, creates a real possibility of manipulation by sidelining meritorious candidates and disregarding their academic credentials.

It is further contended that the selection committee of the College Service Commission has not been constituted in accordance with Clause 5.1(viii)(a)

of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

In support of the above submissions, Mr. Arka Maity, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the UGC Regulations, 2018 have an overriding effect over State legislation, and therefore the College Service Commission is bound to conduct the recruitment process strictly in conformity with the UGC Regulations, 2018. Any deviation or infraction thereof, it is submitted, vitiates the entire selection process. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgme