Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 220 (CAL)

Amal Kumar Pal v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-03-01

BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. 2. THE writ petitioners approach this Court in a second round of litigation; the earlier having culminated in an order passed by this Court on 11th December, 2009, in W.P. 17749 (W) of 2009. By the said order dated 11th December, 2009 the earlier writ petition was disposed of by this Court with the following directions :- "Having heard learned Advocate for the parties, this writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Vice-Chancellor of the University with his grievance within a week from date. If the Vice-Chancellor is approached, he shall proceed to decide the issue raised by the petitioner upon granting opportunity of hearing to him, the college authority as well as other interested persons. A decision shall be given by the Vice-Chancellor as early as possible but not later than three weeks from date of approach made by the petitioner. In the event the prayer is regretted, a reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to him. On the contrary if the Vice-Chancellor accepts the prayer of the petitioner, he shall pass appropriate orders redressing his grievance. The submission of Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate for the petitioner that he is willing to lose a Semester Examination in the process of consideration of his claim by the Vice-Chancellor is recorded. There shall be no order as to costs." Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the writ petitioners were granted an opportunity of hearing by the Vice-Chancellor of West Bengal University of Technology. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, in his decision dated 1st January, 2010, the Vice-Chancellor was of the opinion that the student should continue his studies in Dr. B.C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur and his prayer for transfer to some other college was not accepted. It was further observed by the Vice-Chancellor that if the student accepted the suggestion, the University would take measures to impress on the college to offer special protection to the student. 3. CHALLENGING the decision of the Vice-Chancellor dated 1st January, 2010, the writ petitioners approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. However, in the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner No. 2, is essentially seeking a transfer, either to Kalyani Government Engineering College or to Future Institute of Technology, Sonarpur, as is apparent from the prayers made in the instant writ petition. 4. However, in the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner No. 2, is essentially seeking a transfer, either to Kalyani Government Engineering College or to Future Institute of Technology, Sonarpur, as is apparent from the prayers made in the instant writ petition. 4. LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners cites a judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of University of Kerala v. Council, Principals' Colleges Kerala and Ors. reported in (2009)7 SCC 726 , with regard to Raghavan Committee's Recommendations for implementation of anti-ragging measures to be undertaken by the educational institutions and submits that in the instant case the recommendations have not been followed or complied with by the college authorities or by the University. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the concerned college, namely, Dr. B. C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur, submits that all possible steps have been taken by the college in terms of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court and the recommendations of the Raghavan Committee and strict anti-ragging measures have been put in place so as to ensure a ragging free environment in the college. However, he submits that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case what the writ petitioner in this second round of litigation is essentially seeking is a transfer to a different educational institution, for which the college has no role to play. 5. LEARNED Advocate representing the West Bengal University of Technology submits that in terms of the earlier order of this Court dated 11th December, 2009, passed in W.P. 17749 (W) of 2009, the Vice- Chancellor of the University afforded an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners as well as the College authorities and other interested persons and had observed that the student should continue his studies in Or. B. C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur and his prayer for transfer to some other college could not be accepted. 6. LEARNED Advocate for the University submits that this being the position maintained by the Vice-Chancellor, there is no question of allowing the writ petitioner No. 2 to obtain a transfer from Dr. B. C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur to a particular college of his choice. She further submits that the Vice-Chancellor has assured that if the student remained in Dr. LEARNED Advocate for the University submits that this being the position maintained by the Vice-Chancellor, there is no question of allowing the writ petitioner No. 2 to obtain a transfer from Dr. B. C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur to a particular college of his choice. She further submits that the Vice-Chancellor has assured that if the student remained in Dr. B. C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur, the University authority would take measures to impress on the college to offer special protection to the student. She submits that in such facts and circumstances of the case, the student cannot get a transfer to an educational institution of his choice. After considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in University of Kerala (supra), I am of the opinion that the Principal of Dr. B. C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur, must take adequate measures to protect the student so that he does not become a victim of ragging. 7. LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the college gives an undertaking before this Court on behalf of the Principal of Dr. B. C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur, that all possible steps shall be taken to ensure that the student concerned, namely, Avijit Pal is afforded adequate protection within the campus to enable him to pursue his academic career smoothly. 8. I am, however, unable to accede to the prayer made by the writ petitioner No. 2 to transfer him to an educational institution of his choice, in view of categorical observation made by the Vice-Chancellor of West Bengal University of Technology in the decision rendered by him on 1st January, 2010 and in view of the undertaking given by the Principal of the College before this Court. The instant writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.