Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1137 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.374 OF 2009)  

VISVA BHARATI & ORS.   ...APPELLANTS

                VERSUS

SHRI BAIDYA NATH SAHA & ORS.  ...RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal is  directed against  the judgment  and order  

passed by the High Court of judicature of Calcutta in M.A.T.No.847  

of 2008, dated 3rd December, 2008.  By the impugned judgment and  

order, the High Court has issued the following directions:

“....The order under appeal is affirmed in so far as  it quashed the re-advertisement and is modified in its  remaining  part  by  directing  the  University  to  undertake  a  selection  process  between  the  two  remaining candidates – the writ petitioner and Subrata  Biswas  –  upon  setting  down  objective  standards  of  evaluation; giving weightage by way of marks to the  educational qualifications, experience and performance  at a fresh interview of the two candidates that may be  taken.  In the event, however, that Subrata Biswas is  not interested or does not show up at the interview,  the  appellant  should  be  appointed.   The  entire  exercise should be completed by the university within  a period of six weeks from date.

The appeal and the applications are disposed of  accordingly.  There will be no order as to costs.”

3. The facts in nutshell are :

An advertisement was issued by the University some time in  

the year 2003 to fill up the post of Assistant Director (Adult and  

Continuing Education and Extension). The said post was reserved for  

Scheduled Caste (S.C.)/ Scheduled Tribe (S.T.) candidates.  Pursuant

Page 2

: 2 :

to the advertisement issued, several candidates had appeared before  

the  Selection  Committee  of  the  University.   In  the  process  of  

selection, the Selection Committee had recommended the name of one  

Ajit Kumar Mondal, to be appointed for the advertised post.  In  

accordance  with  the  recommendation  so  made  by  the  Selection  

Committee, the University had issued the letter of appointment to  

Shri Ajit Kumar Mondal, which was rejected by him for the reasons  

best  known.   This  persuaded  the  University  to  issue  another  

advertisement/Notification inviting the applications from S.C./ S.T.  

candidates to fill up the aforesaid vacant post.  In the midst of  

the  selection  process,  Shri  Baidyanath  Saha-Respondent  No.1  had  

filed  a  Writ  Petition  before  the  High  Court  in  Writ  Petition  

No.16366 (w) of 2007.  In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner had  

primarily called in question the memo that was communicated to the  

S.C./S.T. Association wherein it was stated that only one person was  

found eligible by the Selection committee for the post of Assistant  

Director (Adult and Continuing Education and Extension).

4. The  High  Court,  after  notice  to  all  the  parties,  has  

issued  a  writ  of  mandamus  to  the  University  to  appoint  the  

Respondent No.1 herein for the aforesaid post.  Aggrieved by the  

order so made, the University had approached the Division Bench of  

the same High Court.  The Division Bench, while rejecting the appeal  

filed by the University, has issued certain directions, which we  

have noticed earlier.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  The  

learned counsel  appearing  for  the  University would bring to our

Page 3

: 3 :

notice  that  earlier  the  post  of  Assistant  Director  (Adult  and  

Continuing Education and Extension) was a non-academic post, whereas  

now the said post has become an academic post.  If the statement  

made by the learned counsel is true and correct, at this stage, we  

may not be in a position to grant any relief sought for by the  

Respondent No.1.  We also intend to state here that by virtue of the  

interim orders granted by this Court, the orders and the directions  

issued by the Writ Court were not implemented by the University.

6. In view of the aforesaid development, we only declare that  

the direction issued by the Writ Court cannot be implemented by the  

appellant-University at this belated stage.  In that view of the  

matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the orders and directions  

issued by the Writ Court as confirmed by the Division Bench in the  

appeal filed by the University.

7. We  also  make  it  clear  that,  if  for  any  reason,  the  

Respondent no.1 comes to know that the statement made by the learned  

counsel for the appellant is either incorrect or improper, he is at  

liberty to make an appropriate application before this Court for  

recalling/modification  of the order passed by this Court.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 12, 2013