VISVA BHARATI Vs SHRI BAIDYA NATH SAHA .
Bench: H.L. DATTU,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: C.A. No.-001137-001137 / 2013
Diary number: 500 / 2009
Advocates: SUSMITA LAL Vs
ARUP BANERJEE
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