JUDGMENT The petitioner who claims to be the Principal of Surendra Nath College completed the age of 60 years on 31st January, 1984. The College is run managed and administered by an Ad-hoc Committee appointed by the High Court consisting of Ajit Roy Mukherjee, Chairman, Bishnupada Mukherjee and Ajit Ghosh as member thereof. The facts of this case are shortly set out hereunder. 2. On July 2, 1983 the petitioner applied to the then Administrator of Surendra Nath College for re-employment for a term of two years and submitted a Self-Assessment Report and the service roll. The Administrator of the College recomended the case of the petitioner for re-employment for a period of 2 years with effect from February 1, 1984, On July 16, 1983 the Administrator sent all the relevant papers i e., self-assessment report and the service roll to the concerned authority. Ultimately a Screening Committee consisting of Dr. Munishwar Jha, the then Director of Public Instructions, Dr. Dhiresh Bhattacharya, nominee of the University and Dr. H.N. Roy, nominee of the College Teachers Service Commission was formed. Pursuant to the direction of the Screening Committee, the petitioner appeared before the said Screening Committee on 15th February, 1984. The result of the deliberation of the Screening Committee was not disclosed but on 14th June, 1984 the petitioner was directed to hand over charge of Principal in the afternoon of June 30, 1984. Thereafter an application was moved before the Appellate Side of this Court and an order of injunction was passed on June 26, 1984 restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the order dated June 12, 1984 wereby the petitioner was directed to make over the charge. The interim order was initially till 21st July, 1984 which was later on extended. An order of injunction was also issued directing the respondents to re-employment the petitioner for full term as the Principal of Surendra Nath College. Ultimately the matter carne up for hearing before me. On 24th September, 1986 I disposed of the writ application by holding that the petitioner completed two years of re-employment on January 31, 1986 and accordingly, no further relief could be granted to him in that writ application and accordingly I directed that the petitioner will not act as Principal after 30th September, 1986, but he will be paid his salary for the month of October, 1986. An appeal-was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court and the said Division Bench passed the following order :- "We, therefore, direct the Director of Public Instruction to forward the recommendation of the Screening Committee as made on 15th February, 1984 to the present Ad-hoc Committee of the College within a fortnight from to-day. The Ad-hoc Committee should proceed on the footing that the Screening Committee did not recommend for re-employment of the Principal for two years: The Ad-hoc Committee will on that footing into consideration such recommendation of the Screening Committee and should take a decision whether in the facts of the case the Ad-hoc Committee is inclined to give post fact re-employment to the Principal for a period of two years from the date of his superannuation. Although the period for first re-employment for two years is over, the Ad-hoc Committee will consider whether such appointment should have been given or not. If the Ad-hoc Committee is inclined to give re-employment for a period of two years from the date of superannuation of the appellant his continuation of service as a Principal of the said College in terms of the interim order passed by the learned trial Judge should be treated as re-employment given to him. In that event, the question of consideration of further extension by way of re-employment of the Principal will arise. If the Ad-hoc Committee is of tie view that the Principal could not have given any re-employment initially, then the question of extension by way of re-employment for further terms will not arise. In that event, the Ad-hoc Committee will immediately communicate its decision to the Director of Public Instructions. If the Ad-hoc Committee is of the view that the question of further extension by way of re-employment of the Principal is required to be considered, the State Government is directed to from a Screening Committee for the said purpose within four weeks from the date of such communication. Such Screening Committee in that event, will take into consideration the matter of further extension by way of re-employment both for the second and third term in view of the fact that in the meantime the question of extension of the second, term will expire. The recommendation of the Screening Committee will be completed within a month from the construction of the Screening Committee. The recommendation of the Screening Committee will be completed within a month from the construction of the Screening Committee. The Director of Public Instructions will communicate the decisiol1 of the Screening Committee within a fortnight from the date of recommendation of the Screening Committee and the Ad-hoc Committee or the Governing Body of the College, as the case may be, will take the decision of further re-employment of the appellant. Until such decisions are taken, the appellant will not render his service as a Principal but if ultimately the Governing Body decides to give him re-employment for the second or third time, then the Principal must be deemed to have been in service for the entire period and the salaries for such period will be given to him." 3. The case of the petitioner is that the Ad-hoc Committee unanimously adopted resolution in which it clearly stated that service of the 'petitioner was indispensable to the college and forwarded the case of the petitioner for extension for the second and third term. In pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench, the Ad-hoc Committee also unanimously adopted resolution treating the first two years as service on re-employment and recommended for extension for the second and third term. The Ad-hoc Committee Sent the recommendation on April 16, 1987. 4. Inspite of the said specific order of the Division Bench of this Court, the State Government allegedly initially tried to avoid formation of the Screening Committee and to prevent consideration of the petitioner's case by the Screening Committee. In spite of the express clear and unambiguous order of this Court the State Government sought opinion from its legal advisors to ascertain whether under the order of the Division Bench the State Government was under an obligation to constitute the Screening Committee. As all the legal advisors were of the view that the Screening Committee would have to be constituted under the order of this Court, the State Government ultimately formed a Screening Committee. 5. The Screening Committee held its meeting on September 18, 1987 to consider the proposal for re-employment of the petitioner for the second and third term and also interviewed the petitioner. By Memo No. ED-510/ED-2A/Pt. II dated September 28, 1987 the D. P. I. West Bengal forwarded proceedings and recommendations of the Screening Committee to the Ad-hoc Committee for its acceptance. The Screening Committee held its meeting on September 18, 1987 to consider the proposal for re-employment of the petitioner for the second and third term and also interviewed the petitioner. By Memo No. ED-510/ED-2A/Pt. II dated September 28, 1987 the D. P. I. West Bengal forwarded proceedings and recommendations of the Screening Committee to the Ad-hoc Committee for its acceptance. The Screening Committee expressed its opinion that the petitioner, who is physically fit and mentally alert, cannot be replaced immediately. 6. The Ad-hoc Committee accepted the recommendation of the Screening Committee and, asked the petitioner to join immediately after the Puja vacation. The petitioner joined the college on October 26, 1987. By Memo No. ED-636/ED-2A-41/83 Part II dated November 23, 1987 the D.P.I. intimated the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee the Government's approval to re-employment of the petitioner for a period of two years for second and third term from February 1, 1986. 7. The prescribed procedure for consideration and grant of re-employment requires the petitioner making an application and the Governing Body to forward its recommendation six months before the date of expiry of the term. The petitioner on July 10, 1987 submitted an application before the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee- offering himself for re-employment for the 4th and last term of one year commencing from February 1, 1988. The petitioner also sent his "Self-assessment Report" and Service Roll. 8. Upon the petitioner's application the Ad-hoc Committee in its meeting held on August 8, 1987 unanimously adopted the following resolution :- "Resolved that the Ad-hoc Committee recommends the case of re-employment of Sri P. N. Bhattacharyya for the fourth time (i. e. from 1.2.88 to 31.1.89) since his services are considered to be indispensible for the college and forward his application to the State Government with all necessary enclosures for necessary follow up action." 9. By letter dated August 10, 1987 the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee forwarded the application of the petitioner, the resolution of the Ad-hoc Committee and all other necessary papers to the D.P.J. for necessary consideration by the Screening Committee to be formed for the purpose. 10. Although the recommendation of the Ad-hoc Committee along with all the necessary documents was forwarded to the State Government on August 10. 1987. no meeting of the Screening Committee was convened. 10. Although the recommendation of the Ad-hoc Committee along with all the necessary documents was forwarded to the State Government on August 10. 1987. no meeting of the Screening Committee was convened. By letter No. SNC/144/87-88 dated October 26, 1987 the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee remained the D. P. I. that the 3rd term of re-employment of the petitioner would expire on January 31, 1988 and requested the D.P.I. to set up a Screening Committee for the purpose at a very early date. On September 15, 1987 the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee again sent a reminder to the D.P.I. By the said letter the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee, inter alia, pointed out that the services of the petitioner are considered indispensable and there would be serious dislocation in the work of the college after January 31,1988 if the recommendations of the Screening Committee are not communicated sufficiently ahead of January 31, 1988. 11. As the third term of the petitioner was going to expire on January 31, 1988 the petitioner made enquiries in the offices of the Calcutta University and the College Teachers Service Commission and have come to learn that the University and the College Service Commission have sent the names of their nominee for the purpose of forming the Screening Committee to consider the case of the petitioner more than a month back. The petitioner has also come to learn from the staff offices that Cat. University bas selected Principal. Nirode Bhattacharya as its nominee and the College Service Commission has selected Dr. Radha Raman Chakravorty as its nominee. It is the case of the petitioner that the Screening Committee did not hold the meeting for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner. 12. This application was moved on 28th January, 1988 praying for extension of the petitioner's service from 31st January, 1988 for the last term. An interim order was passed directing maintenance of status quo which is still continuing. Affidavits have been filed and thereafter this matter came up for hearing before this Court. Even if re-employment is allowed to the petitioner, the last term will expire on 31st January, 1989. 13. In course of hearing certain documents were placed before this Court by the respective parties. The Management of the College is vested in the. Affidavits have been filed and thereafter this matter came up for hearing before this Court. Even if re-employment is allowed to the petitioner, the last term will expire on 31st January, 1989. 13. In course of hearing certain documents were placed before this Court by the respective parties. The Management of the College is vested in the. Board of Trust originally executed in 1909 and in the Surendranath College Council The Supreme financial control is vested in the Board of Trust and the administrative control in the Surmdranath College Council. Surendranath College Council administers the affairs of the college subject to the supreme financial control of Trustees. Surendrannth College Council consists of not less than 12 and not more than 16 members and include, inter alia, the Principal of the College for the time being. 14. On the basis of certain allegations made against the administration of the affairs of the College a Committee was appointed by the Syndicate and the said Committee submitted its report and in the Said report various irregularities were pointed out The said report was submitted on 3rd April, 1975. In the said report it was, inter alia, stated as follows :- "It will he clear from the facts mentioned in the foregoing report that Surendranath College is one of the most mis-managed educational institutions affilitiated to the University of Calcutta. There is total absence of academic atmosphere in the college and the administrative machinery is wholly outmoded and needs streamlining. We, therefore, recommend that a directive issued on the management of Surendranath College (Day) to rectify, all the irregularities by taking measures in consonance with the under mentioned recommendations: 1. The Principal of the College be requested to furnish statements without further delay showing receipts of grants from the U.G.C towards purchase of laboratory equipment and library books and utilization of such grants along with supporting documents. The Principal be also requested to furnish statements showing receipt of State Government grants both recurring and non-recurring and utilization of such grants along with supporting documents. These should include all grants received by the College since separate affiliation to the Surendranath Group of College as independent institution under the U.G.C. Scheme. 2. The present practice of wasting College funds by maintaining separate offices, such as, Board Office, Central Office etc. These should include all grants received by the College since separate affiliation to the Surendranath Group of College as independent institution under the U.G.C. Scheme. 2. The present practice of wasting College funds by maintaining separate offices, such as, Board Office, Central Office etc. shall have to be discontinued and the entire Official business should be centralised in the College Office located in the College premises under the direct supervision of the Principal of the College. All Office records, book, of accounts papers and documents etc. must be kept under the custody of the Principal of the College. 3. The rent of a total sum of Rs. 1.30,000/- to the Board of Trust from the Surendranath Group of College, being too exorbitant, is unjustified and if there be any justification at all, a substantial amount of this rent should go to the Day College. 4. The system of transferring surplus income of the College to the contingent reserve fund is not permissible. 5. The Provident Fund accounts of the teachers and other employees will have to properly maintained under the validly constituted Provident Fund Committee with representatives of teachers and employees." 15. In 1978 an Administrator was appointed. The Administrator complained that the Cash Books and daily collection books of Surendranath College (Day) for the year 1970-71 and 1972-73 which were taken to the trustees office were not available, The Chartered Accountants M/s. Bhattacharya & Bhattacharya on 28th February. 1978, inter alia, informed as follows :- "In course of our investigation work we are facing much difficulties due to non-availability of some of the important Registers/Books or Original Cash receipts and records. We have already pointed out verbally to your Accountant and also made requisition for the same. The details of the said Registers/Books which were not made available to us are given below : 1. Daily collection Register (Commerce wings) Day section for the years 1972-73. 2. Cash Book for the period 1.6.70 to 3.6.79 and 31.1.71 to 31.5.1971. 3. D lily Collection Register (Commerce wings) day section for the year 1970-71 and (Arts & Science wings) day section for the period of 24.4.71 to 31.5.1971. 4. Cash Receipts from I. 6 70 to 31 5 1973. 5. Attendance Register of the students for the year 1970-71 to 1972-73." 16. 3. D lily Collection Register (Commerce wings) day section for the year 1970-71 and (Arts & Science wings) day section for the period of 24.4.71 to 31.5.1971. 4. Cash Receipts from I. 6 70 to 31 5 1973. 5. Attendance Register of the students for the year 1970-71 to 1972-73." 16. In the said Report it was pointed out that there are various irregularities between the Provident Fund as stated in the Audit Report and the actual as submitted by the Principal, P.N. Bhattacharyya, who is also a member of the Board of Trust. The discrepancy in enrolment was also pointed out. It has been submitted by the Auditor that by the process of reduction in roll strength, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- has been defrauded. It has also been pointed out that expenditure on building repairs or expenses of Library A/c show glaring discrepancies. It is not known what happened. 17. It appears that pursuant to the order passed by the Director of Public Instructions dated 2lst-23rd September, 1987, Dr. Sukumar Sen, Asstt. Director of Public Instruction (NGO), Education Directorate was directed to cause an inspection of the Surendranath College (Day). The terms of reference of the inspection were as follows :- (a) alleged financial and administrative lapses on the part of Sri Phanindra Nath Bhattacharyya, Principal of the College; (b) alleged non-maintenance of proper academic standards in the College by the Principal; (c) alleged non-maintenance of Provident Fund accounts and other accounts of the College and service records, leave records etc. of the staff of the College in proper and regular manner. Various discrepancies and diversion of funds and payments have been brought out in the said investigation report. of the staff of the College in proper and regular manner. Various discrepancies and diversion of funds and payments have been brought out in the said investigation report. In the said report it was held after referring to the report of the Calcutta University dated 3rd April, 1975 as follows:- "Even if we do not go to that extent we are constrained to comment that Sri Phanindranath Bhattacharyya failed, willingly or unwillingly, to perform the role of the Principal of a big and reputed College like Surendranath College (Day)." 18 It appears that on 11th July, 1983 the then Administrator recommended the case of the petitioner as follows:- "It is resolved that Shri Bhattacharya’s case for reemployment for a period of 2 years with effect from 1.2.84 be recommended to the State Government on the ground that his continued availability as Principle of the College is indispensable in the interest of smooth functioning of the College, as is evidenced by his very able handling of delicate administrative affairs of the collage/during the last 18 years of his stewardship as Principal of the College." What records the Administrator had considered are not clear. He was appointed in 1978. I do not know bow he could know about the functioning of the Principal in respect of several previous year. It is also not clear whether the Administrator considered the Inspection Report of the Syndicate dated 3rd April, 1975 and also the Chartered Accountant's Report as mentioned hereinbefore. On the basis of the said recommendation of the Administrator, the Screening Committee held its meeting on 15th February. 1984. Before the Screening Committee the petitioner appeared On February 29, 1984 the D.P.I. wrote to the Administrator in forming him that question of reemployment of the petitioner was under active consideration and the petitioner was allowed to continue upto-June 30, 1984. The ground of which the Screening Committee did not approve the re-employment has not been disclosed. It is not known what actually happened in this case in 1984. There was definitely some thing - against the petitioner for which Screening Committee asked him to retire after June 30, 1984. 19. On 17th July, 1985 the petitioner made an application for extension for the second term i.e., from February 1, 1986 to January 31, 1987. But such application however, was not produced before this Court. There was definitely some thing - against the petitioner for which Screening Committee asked him to retire after June 30, 1984. 19. On 17th July, 1985 the petitioner made an application for extension for the second term i.e., from February 1, 1986 to January 31, 1987. But such application however, was not produced before this Court. The Administrator, however, expressed his inability to forward the petitioner's application as he was not given the recommendation of the Screening Committee for the earlier term. Nevertheless the Administrator opined that the service of the petitioner are indispensable for the College. 20. After the Order was passed by the Division Bench on 28th January, 1987, the Ad-hoc Committee regularized the re-employment of the petitioner. The Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee, however, did not go into the allegations made against the Principal. The petitioner submitted application before the Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee on 10th July, 1987 offering himself for re-employment for the 4th and last term commencing from February 1, 1988, which is the subject-matter of this application. 21. The contention of the petitioner is that the Screening Committee resolved that services of the petitioner are indispensable for the College and forwarded his application for employment. 22. According to the respondents one of the members of the Ad-hoc Committee abstained from the meeting on the ground that he made allegations before the court and the matter was pending consideration of the Appeal Court. 23. The Chairman forwarded the application of the petitioner along with necessary documents. Here again it is the case of the respondents that the earlier Report of the University or the Auditors report were not gone into. Again in September, 19157 the Dew Screening Committee recommended the Principals re-employment upon the view that the petitioner is mentally alert and physically fit and he cannot be replaced immediately. It has been stated that the Screening Committee had to meet under the verbal directive of the Education Secretary on 18th September, 1987, though one of the members of the Screening Committee did not come. A new member was appointed at the instance of the Education Secretary. The new member was Professor Alok Ghosh. It has been stated that the Screening Committee had to meet under the verbal directive of the Education Secretary on 18th September, 1987, though one of the members of the Screening Committee did not come. A new member was appointed at the instance of the Education Secretary. The new member was Professor Alok Ghosh. Before the Screening Committee, papers and documents relating to the administration of the College under the petitioner should have been placed but that was not done on 19th Oct, 1987 the Ad-hoc Committee accepted the unanimous recommendation of the Screening Committee and gave re-employment to the petitioner for the 2nd and 3rd term. It may be mentioned that one member was not present. The Ad-hoc Committee did not consider at all the various representations made against the Principal as also the report of the University trade in 1975. 24. On 26th October, 1987 the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee sent reminder to the D.P.I. requesting him to set up a Screening Committee for consideration of the re-employment of the petitioner for the 4th term. The Government, in the meantime, asked for direction for investigation against the affairs of the Co liege and the investigation was made in November, 1987 and the report was submitted thereafter on 14th December, 1987. On December 15, 1987 the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee again sent reminder reiterating that the services-of the Principal i.e., the petitioner herein are considered indispensable and also requesting to set up the Screening Committee at a very early date. But when these recommendation were made, the Investigation Report made by Dr. Sen was not placed before the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee. Thereafter on 28th January, 1988 an application was moved. On the same date the petition received a letter of the D. P. I. asking him to appear before the Screening Committee on January 29, 1988. It has been slated in the petition that the nominee of the University was replaced by professor P. N. Roy. It is not known how the petitioner came to know about the names of the members of the Screening Committee. The allegation as that the Principal, Nirod Bhattacharyya was wrongfully removed from the Screening Committee. Professor Nirod Bhattacharyya who was the nominee at the Vice-Chancellor was replaced. On 29th January. It is not known how the petitioner came to know about the names of the members of the Screening Committee. The allegation as that the Principal, Nirod Bhattacharyya was wrongfully removed from the Screening Committee. Professor Nirod Bhattacharyya who was the nominee at the Vice-Chancellor was replaced. On 29th January. 1988 the Screening Committee passed the following order:- "We, the members of the Screening Committee persued the relevant G.O. laying down the principles and procedure to be followed in the matter of granting re-employment of superannuated non-Government College teachers and Principals and other documents and papers including the resolution adopted by the Ad-hoc Committee of the Surendranath College on 7. 8.87. and came to the unanimous decision that Shri P. N. Bhattacharyya need not be given any further re-employment beyond 31.1.88(AN) as has already enjoyed re-employment for three terms for a total period of four years and there is no adequate justification to grant him re-employment beyond 31.1.88(AN). The Committee therefore, unanimously recommend that Shri P.N. Bhattacharyya should not be granted re-employment beyond 31.1.88(AN). The report may be forwarded to the Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee of Surendranath Group of Colleges for necessary action." 25. Thereafter the following resolution was passed by the Ad-hoc Committee :- "The Chairman stated that the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta had given liberty to the Ad-hoc Committee to consider the Report of the Screening Committee before the matter was finally heard. According, this meting was called to enable the members of the Ad-hoc Committee to give their views on the Report of the Screening Committee. The Chairman the requested the members to give their views if they so desired on they report of the Screening Committee. Professor Bishnupada Mukherjee stated that the report of the Screening Committee was malafide and no weight should be placed on it and that Principal, P.N. Bhattacharyya should continue as Principal till the final decision of the Hon'ble High Court. Sri Mukherjee stated that the report of the investigation conducted by the Government into allegations against the Principal which was submitted to the Hon'ble Court by the lawyer appearing for the University should first have been submitted to the Ad-hoc Committee in terms of section 49 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. Ad-hoc Committee should not take any decision about re'-employment of Principal P. N. Bhattacharyya without looking into that report. Ad-hoc Committee should not take any decision about re'-employment of Principal P. N. Bhattacharyya without looking into that report. The Screening Committee as originally constituted was changed so that its opinion would be unfavourable to the Principal. Professor Ghosh stated that the Hon'ble Court granted leave to the Ad-hoc Committee to consider the report of the Screening Committee and to give its opinion in the matter. Professor Ghosh, stated that uptil now he had never expressed any opinion regarding Principal, Bhattacharyya re-employment inspite of his many reservations about his, administrative ability. However, be is of firm opinion that Principal, P. N. Bhattacharyya should not be granted re-employment for the 4th term beginning from 2.2. 86 in view of the contents of report of the Screening Committee. The Chairman stated that he did not consider, that it would be in the interest; of the college to give further employment to Professor Bhattacharyya in view of the report of the Screening Committee and accordingly he could not recommend further employment to, Principal, P.N. Bhattacharyya. It is for the Hon’ble Court" however to decide the matter." Mr. Saktinath Mukherji learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner bas contended that in 1987 the Ad-hoc Committee recommended the petitioner and the Screening Committee also found him mentally - alert and physically fit and that he could not be replaced immediately. But the said Screening Committee had taken a different view now. Several legal submissions have been made, but in my view, it is not necessary to go in to the legal contentions at all. How re-employment has to be made has been specified by the Government in two circulars. In the circular dated 15th November, 1979 it has been provided that re-employment shall be made only in exceptional cases were highly talented teacher cannot be immediately replaced or continued availability of his/her service is found indispensable for research programme in existence. The period will be-initially for two years but subsequently for one year or less. But in no case, such re-employment can be given if the teacher concerned has attained the age of 65 years. It has also been provided who will be the members of the Screening Committee. The period will be-initially for two years but subsequently for one year or less. But in no case, such re-employment can be given if the teacher concerned has attained the age of 65 years. It has also been provided who will be the members of the Screening Committee. The circular of 1980 being dated 29th July provided, inter alia, as follows :- "The Governing Body of the College concerned may recommend to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal the case of re-employment of the Principal of the College at least 6 months prior to the due date of his/her retirement, where upon the Director of Public Instruction will form the Screening Committee in the manner prescribed above, the Screening Committee after going through the relevant documents including self-assessment report of the Principal and the service record shall give its own recommendation about re-employment of the Principal giving sufficient justification as envisaged in sub-para (iv) of para 2 of the Government Order referred to above. The recommendation of the Screening Committee should be made known to the Governing Body of the College at least 3 months before the due date of retirement of the Principal." 26. The Calcutta University Act and the Statutes do not stipulate that re-employment should be offered as a matter of course, It is to be given only in exceptional cases and recommendation of the Screening Committee regarding re-employment shall be made on' the basis of the performance of the teacher concerned. The re-commendation should also justify that he cannot be replaced immediately or his continued availability is indispensable for research programme in existence The procedure is that the principal himself shall submit his self-assessment and the Governing Body shall adopt resolution either recommending or not recommending the case of re-employment and thereafter the said recommendation should go to the Screening Committee who shall independently decide whether there should be any re-employment of the person concerned or not and thereafter the Ad-hoc Committee has to come to their decision on the basis of the report of the Screening Committee. From the naration of facts it will appear that the Ad-hoc Committee in this case did not recommend for the 2nd and 3rd time and the petitioner continued in service on the basis of the interim order passed by the Court and the recommendation for the fourth term was made by the Ad-hoc Committee on 8th August. From the naration of facts it will appear that the Ad-hoc Committee in this case did not recommend for the 2nd and 3rd time and the petitioner continued in service on the basis of the interim order passed by the Court and the recommendation for the fourth term was made by the Ad-hoc Committee on 8th August. 1987. It is strange that prior to the decision of re-employment for 2nd and 3rd term, the Ad-hoc Committee decided that re-employment be provided for the 4th term on 8th August, 1987. Any way, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court The Screening Committee this lime unanimously adopted resolution against re-employment. It appears that they considered the report of the University of 1975 and other materials. Although the report of Dr, Sen was before the Government, the Higher Education Secretary did not care to place the same before the Sereening Committee. The Ad-hoc Committee thereafter on the basis of the direction passed by this Court held a meeting on the 17th February, 1988. Two of the members of Ad-hoc Committee gave their opinion against re-employment but one member expressed his opinion in favour of the re-employment of the petitioner for the last term. The majority decision is against re-employment. Thus both the Screening Committee and the Ad-hoc Committee are against the re-employment of the petitioner. Unless it can be said that there decisions are perverse, the court would not ordinarily interfere in such a case. Re-employment is not extension of service. It is not given as a matter of course. Even if Ad-hoc Committee has expressed its views once in favour of the petitioner, it does not mean that it has to hold the same view subsequently or they cannot hold different view on fresh materials. They will have to consider sub-sequent facts. It has been contended ill the Supplementary affidavit that previously Principal, Nirod Bhattacharyya was nominated as a member of the Screening committee but subsequently Prof. P. N. Roy has been nominated by the University as its nominee in place and stead of Principal, Nirod Bhattacharyya. It has been contended that Prof. P. N. Roy has been nominated by the present Vice-Chancellor. The same allegation can be made against Mr. Santosh Bhattacharyya, the then Vice-Chancellor who nominated Principal, Nirod Bhattacharyya. P. N. Roy has been nominated by the University as its nominee in place and stead of Principal, Nirod Bhattacharyya. It has been contended that Prof. P. N. Roy has been nominated by the present Vice-Chancellor. The same allegation can be made against Mr. Santosh Bhattacharyya, the then Vice-Chancellor who nominated Principal, Nirod Bhattacharyya. One of the members of the Screening Committee is Prof. Alok Ghosh of the Department of Economics of the Calcutta University. Principal, Nirod Bhattacharyya who belongs to Political Science Department was originally a man from the Economics Department. Principal Bhattacharyya who was nominated by the former Vice-Chancellor was not associated with the University and he was the nominee of the Vice Chancellor and not of the nominee of the University. Even if principal Bhattacharyya would have been there in the Screening Committee, then the decision might not have been unanimously, Two members were unanimously in their decision. 27. By virtue of the interim order passed by the Court the petitioner continued in service upto September 24,1986 and thereafter because of the Division Bench judgment up to 30th January of 1987. Very many allegations have been made against the Principal of the College. I am not going into the correctness of those allegations but the allegations are serious. It started from 1975 and strangely enough neither the Government nor the University took any effective steps against the College for allegations of mismanagement, fraudulent transfer of funds, irregular admission of the students violation of all the norms of the University. The Principal as the Head of the Institution can not avoid his responsibility. If he is not directly responsible, be is indirectly responsible for all the things which had happened in the College. Those things could not have been done without his knowledge or his tacit consent. The Court cannot ignore any reports even such reports were not before the Screening Committee. It is not the mental alertness or physical fitness of the incumbent that matters the question is whether he is indispensable as a teacher or Principal. There is no objective fact to justify that he is indispensable. On the contrary the allegations suggest that his continuation in service would not ensure to the benefit of the College. 28. If re-employment is granted he would be continuing upto 31st January, 1989. Only a few months are left. There is no objective fact to justify that he is indispensable. On the contrary the allegations suggest that his continuation in service would not ensure to the benefit of the College. 28. If re-employment is granted he would be continuing upto 31st January, 1989. Only a few months are left. The question is whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as I mentioned hereinbefore, any further re-employment should be given to the petitioner even if it is for a few months more. 29. The allegations which hive been made against the petitioner are serious in nature. It may be that the Ad-hoc Committee once recommend the re-employment of the petitioner and gave also a certificate of good conduct. But that does not mean that the Ad-hoc Committee cannot charge its opinion or hold a different opinion on the basis of subsequent facts. There are two reports, as I mentioned earlier one by the University and the other by the Assistant Inspector or Colleges and in both the reports the Principal had been blamed. 'Even' if it is assumed to be true as what Mr. Saktinath Mukherji learned. Advocate has contended that the Principal is not directly involved, the enquiry reports show that there has been mismanagement fraudulent transfer of, funds, irregular admission of the students and violation ort the norms, of the University. The Principal 'cannot' escape his liability and responsibility being the head of the institution. I have not gone into the, question whether these allegation's are 'correct or not.' But' these allegations cannot be ignored when-such allegations are based on facts. Screening Committee was therefore justified in not giving re-employment to the petitioner. It must be remembered that it is not extension of service but it is re-employment which cannot be claimed as a matte of course or as a matter of right. Having regard to the allegations which had been made against him, it was desirable that the petitioner would quietly retire and would not ask for any further extension. He still wants to continue as the Head of the institution until the last day of 'the term: The document produced before the, Court reveal that the' Secretary of the Higher Education Department has not acted fairly in this matter. He did not bring all the relevant, documents before the Screening Committee. He still wants to continue as the Head of the institution until the last day of 'the term: The document produced before the, Court reveal that the' Secretary of the Higher Education Department has not acted fairly in this matter. He did not bring all the relevant, documents before the Screening Committee. I am not going into the question what led him not to disclose the latest report of Dr. Sukumar Sen regarding the affairs of the management of the College. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case in its entirety and the cumulative effect thereof I am of the view that the application must be dismissed. But Mr. Ashoke Chatterjee ownes an explanation to the Government why the report of Dr. Sen was not, produced before the, Screening committee in the time for consideration and why the report was, kept suppressed. In that view of the matter, the, Minister-in-Charge of Higher Education shall enquire into the conduct of Dr. Ashoke Chatterjee for not placing the report before the, Screening Committee and all the relevant papers which were there. 30. So long as the new Principal is not appointed by the authorities in accordance with the Rules, the senior most teacher of the College shall act as the teacher-in-charge of the College. It is stated that Professor Anil Baran Tiwari is the senior most teacher. Professor Tiwari shall therefore take, over charge forthwith and function as the in-charge of the College. He need not take over charge from the outgoing Principal formal1y. If the outgoing Principal does not make over charge to him, he shall act as the teacher-In-charge notwithstanding the fact whether the petitioner has made over charge formally or not to the said teacher-in-charge. 31. Save as aforesaid all interim orders are vacated. There will be no order, as to costs. All parties shall act on the operative pare of the judgment and order on the usual undertaking.