Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 698 (CAL)

Debdas Mishra v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-07-16

SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, TAPAN KUMAR DUTT

body2008
Judgment :- (1.) WE have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties. (2.) THE respondent No. 3 in the writ petition has filed the instant appeal challenging an order dated 5th December, 2007 whereby the appellants appointment to set up and operate the Youth Computer Training Centre in Egra was set aside and the state-respondents were directed to offer appointment to the respondent No. 3 (petitioner in the writ petition) for setting up and running a Youth Computer Training Centre at Egra. (3.) IT appears from a perusal of the order under challenge in this appeal that the respondent No. 3 had filed the writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of the appellant for setting up a Youth Computer Training Centre at Egra, and for the respondent No. 3s appointment to set up such Youth Computer Training Centre. (4.) THE Honble single Judge has found that the appellant was not a candidate in the selection process which was in dispute in the said writ petition and there was no scope of selection and appointment of the appellant for setting up and operating the Youth Computer Training Centre. (5.) IT appears from an order dated 28th March, 2008 that at one stage of the proceedings in the present appeal the learned counsel for the state-respondents had submitted that in order to mitigate the miseries of the unemployed youths, who had undergone training in the appellants institution, the government should permit the students attached to the said institution to appear in the examinations concerned commencing from 30th March, 2008. It further appears that the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, in his usual fairness, did not oppose the suggestion of the learned counsel for the state-respondents and this Court directed that, during the pendency of the appeal, the State Government shall permit the students, attached to the appellants institution, to appear in the examinations concerned, which were due to commence from 30th March, 2008, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the result of the appeal. (6.) IT appears from the subsequent order dated 23rd April, 2008 that the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the appellant had been running a Computer Training Centre prior to the aforesaid order passed by the Honble single Judge, but, in view of the order challenged in this appeal, the appellant was stopped from running the said Computer Training Centre. It. has also been recorded in the said order that there is no dispute that the respondent No. 3 is running his Computer Training Centre at present. By the said order this Court allowed the appellant and also the respondent No. 3 to run their respective Computer Training Centres during the pendency of the appeal without prejudice to their respective rights and contentions in the appeal and subject to the result of the appeal. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that at present the appellant and also the respondent No. 3 are running their respective Computer Training Centre at Egra. (7.) IT appears from the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that prior to 28th April, 2005 there was no statutory law governing the field in question, that is, matters relating to appointment of agency to set up and run Youth Computer Training Centres at different places in West Bengal. The West Bengal State Council of Vocational Education and Training Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 2005) came into effect on 28th, April, 2005. It will appear from the preamble of the said Act that the purpose of the said Act is to establish a State Council of Vocational Education and Training in West Bengal in order to develop the standard of vocational education and training in West Bengal and to make that standard at par with the standard prevailing at all-India level, to implement programme of strengthening the vocational education and training, and to monitor the performance of the affiliated institutions. Section 15 of the said Act of 2005 deals with the powers and functions of the Council. Amongst other functions, the Council has to grant or refuse recognition to institutions, to withdraw such recognition, if it thinks fit, after considering the recommendations of the Recognition Committee, if any, in accordance with such regulations as may be made in this behalf. Section 15 of the said Act of 2005 deals with the powers and functions of the Council. Amongst other functions, the Council has to grant or refuse recognition to institutions, to withdraw such recognition, if it thinks fit, after considering the recommendations of the Recognition Committee, if any, in accordance with such regulations as may be made in this behalf. It appears from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties that there is no specific eligibility criteria prescribed under the statute, but the matter is left with the discretion of the authorities which takes into consideration the relevant factors while considering the question of grant of recognition or refusal to the grant of recognition to the institutions. Section 15 of the said Act of 2005 indicates the power and control which the Council has over the institutions. (8.) IT appears that the state-respondents have taken the stand in their written notes of submission that at the time when the selection process (that was in dispute in the writ petition) took place the appellant did not make any application, and, as such there could not have been any competition between respondent No. 3 and the appellant. According to the said respondents, one Medhavi Computer, Mednapore, was offered to set up a Computer Training Centre. It is the stand of the state-respondents that subsequently the Government of West Bengal decided to have more and more computer training centres at different places in the State of West Bengal, and to fructify such decision the government adopted a liberalized policy for setting up such Centres. (9.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 1st September, 2005 the appellant had applied for setting up a Youth Computer Training Centre at Egra and on 24th October, 2005 the appellant was appointed for setting up a Youth Computer Training Centre in collaboration with the Department of Sports and Youth Services. It is the appellants case that the application was made by the appellant with the recommendation of the Minister-in-Charge of his own constituency upon verifying the need of the Computer Training Centre for the young students for the academic development in the locality concerned. It is the further case of the appellant that a panel was prepared which included the appellant along with other selected candidates for the purpose of setting up such centres. It is the further case of the appellant that a panel was prepared which included the appellant along with other selected candidates for the purpose of setting up such centres. The appellant has paid royalties to the government on various dates as per directions issued by the government. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has complied with all the legal formalities in this regard and there is no ground to disqualify the appellant from running such centre. The said learned councel further submitted that taking into consideration the purpose far which such Youth Computer Training Centres have been decided to be established in various parts of West Bengal, the appellant and also the respondent No. 3 should be allowed to run their respective computer centres so that computer literacy and/or education is reached to a wider section of the society. (10) THE learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has also filed a written note of submissions in this matter and the said learned counsel submitted that statutory authorities are bound to act in terms of the statute and no Minister can act in derogation of the statutory provisions. (11.) THERE is no dispute with regard to such proposition, but the question is as to whether or not the Minister concerned, in the present case, did really act in derogation of any statute. The said learned counsel could not draw the attention of this Court to any provision of the statute to show that any Minister has been prohibited from making any recommendation for the purpose of implementing a government policy. If the authorities concerned acts solely on the basis of the Ministers recommendation and vitiates its action by arbitrariness and/or discrimination, in such an eventuality, one can definitely challenge the action of the authority concerned. The said learned counsel also could not show from the materials on record that the Minister concerned acted in derogation of any statutory provision. Simply because the Minister concerned made a recommendation in favour of the appellant, it cannot by itself, without anything more, persuade the Court to cancel the appointment of the appellant. A simple recommendation by a Minister, without anything more to show anything against such recommendation, cannot be deemed to be an act beyond the constitutional limits. Simply because the Minister concerned made a recommendation in favour of the appellant, it cannot by itself, without anything more, persuade the Court to cancel the appointment of the appellant. A simple recommendation by a Minister, without anything more to show anything against such recommendation, cannot be deemed to be an act beyond the constitutional limits. After all, the policy of the government concerned, as would appear from the submissions made by the learned counsels, is to spread computer literacy and/or education as much as is possible in the State of West Bengal. (12.) THE learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has raised a point that the Court should exercise its power to interfere with the policy made by the government in exercise of its power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India when the State acts arbitrarily or discriminates between individuals or for collateral purpose as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (13.) THE appellants had applied for being appointed to set up the Youth Computer Training Centre at Egra on 1st September, 2005, that is, quite sometime after the said Act of 2005 came into force. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 could not show any provision in the said Act which can be said to have been violated by appointing the appellant. On the contrary, it appears from the written note of submission filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal that at the time when the appellant made the application for appointment, six other individuals also sought to set up Youth Computer Training Centres at different places in the State of West Bengal and all the cases were approved by the authority concerned. Even if this Court feels that the respondent No. 3 had a genuine grievance against the authorities concerned for not appointing the respondent No. 3 at a certain point of time, such grievance has been remedied by the order under challenge in this appeal and, subsequently, the appellant has been given such appointment and the appellant is now running his Youth Computer Training Centre at Egra. The question now is : whether or not the respondent No. 3 can successfully defeat the claim of the appellant to run his (appellants) computer centre. This Court is of the view that the answer has to be in the negative. The question now is : whether or not the respondent No. 3 can successfully defeat the claim of the appellant to run his (appellants) computer centre. This Court is of the view that the answer has to be in the negative. The learned counsel for the state-respondents has submitted that keeping in view the policy of the State Government, the appellant as well as the respondent No. 3 should be allowed to continue the running of their respective computer training centres at Egra. The said learned counsel has relied upon Article 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India in this regard and has submitted that the respondent No. 3 cannot have any legal grievance if the appellant is allowed to run his computer centre. The said learned counsel further submitted that a large number of Youth Computer Training Centres have already been allowed to be set up in different parts of the State of West Bengal. (14.) FROM a perusal of the materials on record, the relevant provisions of the said Act of 2005 and from the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that there has been no infringement of any statutory provision in the matter of appointment of the appellant for setting up a Youth Computer Training Centre at Egra and that such appointment is not in any way vitiated by any arbitrary and/or discriminatory act on the part of the authorities concerned. It also cannot be said that under the scheme of things or under any statute the respondent No. 3 alone should be allowed to run his Youth Computer Training Centre to the exclusion of all others at Egra. We do not find any violation of equality before the law and/or equal protection of the laws, as contemplated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, on the part of the respondent authorities. (15.) IN view of the discussions made above we allow the present appeal in part by modifying the order dated 5th December, 2007, as aforesaid, which is under challenge in this appeal, to this extent that that part of the said order dated 5th December, 2007 by which the appellants appointment to set up and operate the Youth Computer Training Centre at Egra was cancelled, is hereby set aside. This Court holds that the appointment of the appellant to set up and operate his Youth Computer Centre at Egra is valid and legal. This Court, thus, holds that the appellant as well as the respondent No. 3 will be at liberty to run their respective Youth Computer Training Centres at Egra in accordance with law. (16.) IN view of the disposal of the appeal itself no further order is required to be passed on the application for stay which, accordingly, stands disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.