Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 86 (CAL)

Subrata Sankar Bagchi v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-02-12

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is for issuance of writs in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents for not appointing Principals of Bangabasi College and Maharaja Manindra Chandra College before giving an opportunity to the petitioner to appear for counseling for appointment to the said posts, certiorari, prohibition and other reliefs. The question involved in the matter is as to the qualification for appointment to the post of the Principal of different colleges under different Universities of West Bengal. The writ petitioner applied for the post of the Principal at Bangabasi College and Maharaja Manindra Chandra College and according to his qualification, experience, interview, etc., he stood top position in respect of the Bangabasi College and the Maharaja Manindra Chandra College in the provisional panel. Thereafter, by a notice dated August 8, 2012, the petitioner was requested to appear for counseling on August 14, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. for the aforesaid colleges and he was requested to bring the original testimonials, etc. in support of his qualification, experience, etc. Then, upon scrutiny of the materials produced by the petitioner, he was served with a notice intimating that the candidature of the writ petitioner had been cancelled owing to shortfall in experience. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the reliefs already stated. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that in order to decide the matter on merit, it will be proper to set out the qualification and experience required for the post of a Principal of a College in West Bengal. Accordingly, as per advertisement, the qualification and experience required are set out below:- “3. For General Degree Colleges: A) Academic Qualifications & Experience: a) A Master’s Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) by a recognized university. * Relaxation of 5% from 55% to 50% is admissible for candidates belonging to SC and ST categories and to those who have obtained Master’s Degree prior to 19th September, 1991. b) A Ph.D. degree in concerned/allied/relevant discipline (s) in the institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance. c) Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of 15 years of teaching/research/administration in Universities, Colleges and other Institutions of Higher Education. b) A Ph.D. degree in concerned/allied/relevant discipline (s) in the institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance. c) Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of 15 years of teaching/research/administration in Universities, Colleges and other Institutions of Higher Education. d) A minimum score as stipulated in the academic performance indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) as set out in the UGC (minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education Regulations, 2010). B) AGE: Not below 40 years and not above 55 years on the 1st day of January of the year of advertisement.” In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner is possessing a Master’s Degree with marks above 55% from a recognized University, a Ph.D. Degree and an Associate Professor of a College. So far as experience is concerned, the petitioner has stated that he has been serving as Professor for 14 years 4 months and 12 days as on date and research experience, before joining teaching, of 3 years 10 months and 1 day and administrative experience for 11 years during his teaching period and thus, he has contended that he has experience of more than 15 years under the count of teaching and research. His candidature was not considered in view of the fact that research experience of 3 years 10 months and 1 day as claimed by him was not permissible to be added as experience under the rules. It is not in dispute that such research experience as contended by the petitioner was prior to the obtaining of the Degree for Ph.D. While a student is pursuing the Ph.D. Degree, he is to pursue project works and the period spend on such project works was not taken into consideration by the respondents. Mr. Aloke Kumar Pal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has contended that such research experience is not at all a part of the Course of Ph.D. and that such experience is not at all a research leading to Ph.D. Degree. The said research was independent in nature and under the provisions of the U.G.C. and the same cannot be described at all a research leading to Ph.D. Degree. The said research was independent in nature and under the provisions of the U.G.C. and the same cannot be described at all a research leading to Ph.D. Degree. The petitioner did research works on the subject under the heading “Social Dynamics of the Marginalisation of Population and Child Labour in Calcutta”. In support of his contention, the petitioner has produced the materials. Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the College Service Commission, has contended that such research experience was gathered by the petitioner for the purpose of getting the Degree in Ph.D. and as such, such experience amongst to research leading to Ph.D. and as such, it shall not be counted as experience at all. Mr. Mondal has also contended that the selection to the post of Principal is made by the College Service Commission. The Zonal Unit of the College Service Commission is aided by the Vice Chancellor of the University to which such college is affiliated or his nominee and a nominee of the Chancellor of such University. Marks were awarded to the candidates by outside experts under two heads – (A) Interview and (B) Academic Performance Indicator (API). Both these items carry 40 marks each. The remaining 20 marks are earmarked for academic career component and the same is awarded on purely objective basis – 10 marks for the candidates under Graduate level marks and 10 marks for his Post Graduate marks. Therefore, the representatives of the Commission including the Chairman has no role whatsoever in awarding any marks to the candidate and so, did not have any influence in the selection process per se. The eligibility criteria are decided by all the Members of the Selection Committee (including Zonal Unit Members and outside experts). Mr. Mondal has also contended that the teaching experience would mean whole-time teaching experience in the U.G.C. scale of pay and the research experience should mean Post Doctoral Research Experience. He has also contended that the Commission is supposed to follow the advertisement dated January 4, 2011 to see whether the requisite qualifications and experience have been fulfilled by the candidates for the aforesaid posts. The research experience having not given any explanation under the G.O., the said Commission had to divide a reasonable definition of what should constitute a valid research experience and then to follow the definition. The research experience having not given any explanation under the G.O., the said Commission had to divide a reasonable definition of what should constitute a valid research experience and then to follow the definition. The Commission decided to take post-Doctoral research experience as a valid one for the purpose of selection. The Commission was guided by the two factors in the exercise – (a) Ph.D was the minimum eligibility for the job and hence, predoctoral research experience could not be considered eligible for the purpose and the aforesaid U.G.C. Regulations clearly mentioned that the period taken to acquire M.Phil/Ph.D. should not be considered as research experience for recruitment to teaching posts. A candidate had to fill up the API format. While coming to the interview and in that format, it was clearly indicated that the research experience should exclude the period spend in M.Phil/Ph.D. Mr. Mondal has drawn my attention to the Gazette of India, September 18, 2010 particularly the Point No. 3.9.0. which is quoted below:- “3.9.0. The period of time taken by candidates to acquire M.Phil. and/or Ph.D. Degree shall not be considered as teaching/research experience to be claimed for appointment to the teaching positions.” Mr. Shymal Kumar Das, learned Advocate appearing for the State and Ms. Nandini Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the University have supported the contention of Mr. P.R. Mondal. The learned Advocate appearing for the State has referred to the unreported decision of W.P. No.609(W) of 2010 and thus, he has submitted that the Degree of Ph.D. obtained from an Open University has not been a matter of consideration for determination of the qualification. On the similar analogy, the experience obtained leading to Ph.D. Degree shall not be taken into consideration. Mr. Himadri Sekhar Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent / Bangabasi College, has submitted that the said college is being run by a teacher-in-charge for a long time and the Principal is to be appointed at early date, but, because of the order of this Court, no Principal has yet been appointed and as such, the college is suffering. So, appropriate steps may be recorded. Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.10, has contended that Dr. So, appropriate steps may be recorded. Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.10, has contended that Dr. Monturam Samanta has already been appointed as Principal of the college and he has been functioning in such capacity and as per order of this Hon’ble Court, in the present matter, the post of Principal of the said college has been kept out of the purview of the present proceeding and as such, no adverse order should be passed against Maharaja Manindra Chandra College. Having due regard to the above submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides, I find that so far as research experience is concerned, it is the policy decision adopted by the Commission for the benefit of all and in applying the said policy, there is no discrepancy or arbitrariness in respect of the writ petitioner. The said recourse was adopted irrespective of all the candidates and the logic in taking the said decision appears to be convincing and acceptable. So, the research experience as contended by the petitioner has not been rightly accepted by the respondents in the matter of selection to the posts of Principals. Since, there is no arbitrariness or discrimination in the matter of consideration of the research experience, I am of the view that the petitioner having teaching experience only for 14 years 4 months and 12 days has been rightly notified with the notice dated August 14, 2012 after scrutiny at the time of counseling that the petitioner becomes shortfall in experience. This being the position, I hold that there is no scope of interference with the notice dated August 14, 2012 issued by the respondent no.5 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for in the writ application. The Principal of Maharaja Manindra Chandra College has already been appointed as indicated earlier. So, there will be no order at all in respect of the Maharaja Manindra Chandra College. Therefore, in view of the Gazette Notification particularly Point No. 3.9.0., the research experience as claimed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondents. The application is bereft of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order as passed in this writ petition stands vacated. Therefore, in view of the Gazette Notification particularly Point No. 3.9.0., the research experience as claimed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondents. The application is bereft of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order as passed in this writ petition stands vacated. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking. Later: After passing of this order, the learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for stay of the order. Having considered the nature of the matter and the urgency in the matter of appointment to the post of the Principal, Bangabasi College, I do not think it fit and proper to grant any stay. Accordingly, the prayer for stay is rejected.