High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 5810/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. S. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Bha ttacharya, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. None has appeared for the private respondents including the respondent No.14, who has filed an affida vit-in-opposition. Dr. Debasish Sikdar, (G.C.College, Silchar) Dr. Sagar Boruah, (Lanka Mahavidyalaya, Lanka) (Petitioner) Dr. K. L. Singha, (Kampur College, Kampur)(Respondent No.18) The matter pertains to selection of Principal in Lanka Mahavidyalaya vid e an advertisement dated 18.10.2003. The petitioner along with others including the respondent No.18, responding to the said advertisement, offered their candid atures. The Selection Committee conducted the interview on 20.07.2005 and recomm ended the following candidates in order of preference: (i) (ii) (iii) From the above, what is seen is that the petitioner was also recommended; but as the second nominee, while the respondent No.18 was recommended as first nominee . The recommendation made by the Selection Committee was approved by the Governi ng Body of the College and the required approval of the Director of Higher Educa tion of Assam, was also accorded, pursuant to which, the respondent No. 18 was a ppointed as Principal on 27.07.2005. By now, long eight years have gone by and t he respondent No.18 has been serving in the College as Principal. Two fold grounds urged against the selection and appointment of respondent No.18 by Mr. S. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner are that (i) the respond ent No.18 having not applied for the post through proper channel and/or with NOC , his candidature ought not to have been accepted and (ii) there being seven mem bers in the Selection Committee, the average marks of all the seven members ough t to have been worked out, but instead in case of petitioner, the average mark w as worked out on the basis of marks awarded by seven members, but in case of res pondent No.18 it was calculated taking into account the marks of six members. So far as the second plea is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner fairl y submits that the said plea is not available in the writ petition. Be it stated here that the petitioner has also not filed any affidavit-in-reply to the affid avit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the Governing Body of the college, represented by its President. So far as the first plea is concerned, it is the definite case of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in their counter affidavit that respondent No.18 had furnished (cid:28)no objection (cid:29) from the College in which he was serving. In paragraph 14 of the cou nter affidavit it has been stated that the respondent No.18 had submitted NOC da ted 09.10.2003 from the earlier College Authority. Thereafter he again submitted another NOC dated 13.10.2004 at the time of appearance before the Selection Com mittee on 15.10.2004. It will be pertinent to mention here that the interview sc heduled to be held on 15.10.2004, had to be cancelled due to certain action on t he part of the then President of Governing body of the College. In the meantime the respondent No.18 also submitted another NOC dated 16.07.2004 prior to his ap pearance in the interview, eventually held on 20.12.2004. A candidate is required to submit application through proper channel apprising t he authority that in case of his selection, the earlier authority will have no o bjection towards his release. It is the specific case of the respondent Nos. 3 a nd 4 that the respondent No.18 had submitted NOC about which mention has been ma de above. If the earlier College Authority had issued NOC in favour of responden t No.18, the Selection Committee was within its competence and jurisdiction to t ake into account the said NOC. Moreover the fact of the matter is that the respo ndent No.18 has been released by his earlier college Authority enabling him to j oin the present college, where he had been serving for the last about eight year s. As regards the average marking, it appears that the respondent No.14 was also a member of the Selection Committee, who did not award any mark to the petitioner on the ground that he had not submitted the application through proper channel. This stand of the said member finds mention in the affidavit filed by him. Howev er, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 the said aspec t of the matter has been dealt with specifically referring to the NOCs submitted by the respondent No.18 before the interview was conducted. If the respondent N o.14 had any doubt about offering of candidature through proper channel by respo ndent No.18, he could have recorded his remark even by awarding marks instead of abstaining from his selection by not awarding any mark. This aspect of the matter was also gone into by Director of Higher Education, As sam. When it was found that the candidature of the respondent No.18 was backed b y NOCs issued by the earlier College Authority, his candidature was accepted and eventually he was selected for appointment as Principal. The specific plea of t he respondent Nos. 3 and 4, in their counter affidavit filed on 12.09.2005 has n ot been denied by the petitioner by filing any affidavit-in-reply. The said aff idavit is specific about the NOC accompanying the application submitted by the r espondent No.18 followed by further NOCs before the selection. The said aspect o f the matter was also got clarified from the Director of Higher Education, Assam and the NOC dated 09.10.2003 accompanying the application submitted by the resp ondent No.18 was accepted. It is in the above circumstances if the average calculation is worked out exclud ing the non participating member in respect of respondent No.18, I do not find a ny infirmity in the same. That apart the College in question has been running un der the Principalship of the respondent No.18, since 2005. It will not be conduc ive to disturb the said situation on such technical plea of the petitioner. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Acc ordingly it is dismissed living the parties to bear their own costs.