AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been heard. Prima facie view of Court that Employment Notification dated 16th February, 2010, disclosed and relied upon by
petitioner, being genuine has been assailed by Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the University. Record of submissions in
order dated 20th July, 2018 are relevant as made on behalf of petitioner. “Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and
submits, his client is entitled to relief. Referring to page 71 of writ petition he demonstrates, service condition advertised by the university included
following clauses nos. 8 and 9 under general instructions to candidates.
“8. The candidates who have been presently serving in the same scale of pay will be entitled to get at least six additional increments. 9. Regarding
age of retirement and other conditions of service the First Registrar and First Controller of Examinations will be guided by the Rules and Regulations
and Ordinances to be made by the University. However, the candidates who have been presently serving in the same scale of pay will be considered
for extension of service upto sixty five years after the expiry of the period of his office.â€
At this juncture there is interruption by both Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate, Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of State and Mr.
Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the University. They submit in unision, this advertised notification has been fabricated by
petitioner. No such general instructions to candidates, as would appear from extracted clauses, were advertised. Mr. Mukherjee refers to his
client’s affidavit and seeks to demonstrate, advertised notification relied upon by petitioner is not genuine. Mr. Bhattacharya refers to connected
application CAN 1570 of 2017 made by his client. Page 42 of the application is copy of letter dated 4th November, 2016 addressed by officiating
Vice-Chancellor to former Vice-Chancellor of the University. It would be sufficient to extract therefrom the following.
“In the Web Employment Notification no. 01/VC/Adv/2010 dated 16.02.2010 under ‘General Instructions to the Candidates’ in serial number
8 and 9 it was mentioned that additional six increments and extension of service up to sixty five (65) years after the expiry of the period of service will
be offered to the selected candidate. Sir, you are requested to kindly inform me whether Web Employment Notification was published with these
clauses by you or not? If yes, then whether instructions mentioned in serial number 8 & 9 were discussed in the Selection Committee’s meeting
held on 29.03.2010 for the appointment of the First Registrar? May I please get a copy of the Selection Committee’s recommendation if the same
is available with you?â€
He then refers to reply of former Vice-Chancellor who, according to him, had authorised publication of advertised notification his client is replying on.
Here too it will be sufficient to extract the following. “Regarding Web Employment Notification No. 01/VC/Adv./2010 dated 16.02.2010 under
‘General Instructions to the Candidates’ in serial number 8 & 9 were mentioned by the undersigned so that better candidate having experience
to run College/University administration might be selected. In absence of Ordinances Notification No. F.1-22/97-U.I. dated 06.11.1998, F.3-1/94 (PS)
dated 24.12.1998 and Appendix 1, MHRD, Govt. of India, Department of Education were followed in this respect (Annexure-v)â€.â€
On 26th July, 2018 Mr. Chakraborty had submitted Employment Notification dated 16th February, 2010, relied upon by petitioner, is a manufactured
document. Law did not permit offer of service conditions as made in that advertisement and said to have been made by then Vice-Chancellor.
Referring to disclosure at page 69, in affidavit-in-opposition of the University filed in the writ petition Mr. Chakrarborty had submitted, employment
notification was as per particulars below.
“Employment Notification no.- 01/Reg/Adv/2010     dated 16th February, 2010.â€
Petitioner’s manufactured document alleges particulars of such notification as per disclosure in page 69 of the writ petition as follows.
“Employment Notification no.- 01/Vc/Adv/2010 dated 16th February, 2010.â€
Those submissions having had been made there was direction in order dated 26th July, 2018 for the University to produce original application of
petitioner. Today Mr. Chakraborty submits, original application of petitioner is not in records of the University. He relies on schedule to Aliah
University Act, 2007, being statutes of the University, to statute 3(6)a which says it shall be the duty of the Musajjil (Registrar) to be custodian of,
inter alia, records. On query from Court he draws attention to page 69 in the writ petition, to employment notification, disclosed by petitioner, which
says said notification was issued for three posts, first Registrar, Controller of Examinations and Deputy Registrar.
He submits, petitioner was appointed and acted as Registrar and in that time caused disappearance of his original application to substitute his copy as
bearing employment notification particulars disclosed by him in manufactured employment notification. He hands up original applications of other two
appointees pursuant employment notification dated 16th February, 2010 in posts of Controller of Examinations and Deputy Registrar. Both applications
are dated 24th February, 2010. Both applications give particulars of employment notification as is claimed by the University. Mr. Chakraborty submits,
candidate who was appointed as Controller of Examinations, Dr. Tanwir Ahmad as on deputation and is now no longer in service of the University.
The other candidate was appointed and still is officiating as Deputy Registrar.
Mr. Chakraborty then relies on letter dated 19th January, 2017 written by next Vice-Chancellor to petitioner asking him to be present in 30th meeting
of University Council (Emergency) to be held on 20th January 2017 and bring with him, inter alia, original application forms of the three candidates
who were recommended by Selection Committee in its meeting on 29th March, 2010, for posts of first Registrar, first Controller of Examinations and
Deputy Registrar of the University. A gentle reminder was also given on 27th January 2017. To both these letters petitioner in replied by letter dated
27th January, 2017. Petitioner said, then Vice-Chancellor had informed that all original documents relating to selection of Registrar, Controller of
Examinations and Deputy Registrar are lying in office of Vice-Chancellor. It is Mr. Chakraborty’s specific submission on instruction, petitioner
had removed his original application, manufactured employment notification and caused corresponding change in his copy of application pursuant to
such manufactured notification.
Mr. Bhattacharya disputes submissions made on behalf of the University. He refers to letter dated 15th November 2016, disclosed at page 293 of
affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition, and points out therefrom as reproduced below. “As it was the case of 2010, it is now difficult to recollect
the details of the Advertisement Notification. All the original papers and documents relating to the advertisement are lying with the office of the Vice-
Chancellor. However, few copies of the documents relating to the Advertisement, which had been lying under my disposal are being sent for your kind
information (Annexure iv).â€
He also refers to letter dated 30th March, 2010 written by his client to then Vice-Chancellor who had made endorsement therein for placing same
before the University Council for consideration. He points out from particulars of employment notification dated 16th February, 2010 given therein as
corresponding to particulars given in employment notification disclosed by his client. He submits, this letter was accepted without objection. He also
refers to letter dated 26th March, 2014 written by his client to next ViceChancellor of the University and copy marked to Government of West
Bengal, Minority Affairs and Madrasah Education Department in which also same particulars of employment notification dated 16th February, 2010
was mentioned. He submits, it has been consistent case, on part of his client, employment notification pursuant to which he was appointed bore
particulars as disclosed by his client. This consistency is because the notification disclosed by his client is genuine, to deny which the University has
made false allegations of manufacture and fabrication. On query from Court Mr. Bhattacharya ascertains from his client and submits on instruction,
Dr. Tanwir Ahmad was on deputation to the University up to December 2015 after which he returned to his parent college.
This Court has a serious dispute on facts. Petitioner has disclosed employment notification carrying certain terms which petitioner says he is entitled to
as service conditions. Mr. Bhattacharya, however, could not demonstrate these terms are permissible or could have been offered under the law.
Letter written by former Vice-Chancellor carries claim said person had inserted these terms in the employment notification to attract talent. The claim
was not backed up by any corresponding claim, of authority to have done so. Same former Vice-Chancellor had accepted letters from petitioner in
which petitioner had asserted particulars of employment notification dated 16th February, 2010 to be what he claims, was.
There is of course letter dated 26th March, 2014 addressed to the next Vice-Chancellor in which petitioner had also asserted same particulars of
employment notification but same office by letter dated 19th January 2017 had asked petitioner to produce original applications pertaining to three
appointees, including himself. Petitioner replied, those were in office of Vice-Chancellor. Close scrutiny of letter dated 15th November, 2016 of former
Vice-Chancellor to next officiating ViceChancellor carries omission to mention regarding petitioner having been put in custody of University records or
why that was not done since under the statutes petitioner is custodian.
Two original applications produced by the University caused this Court to appreciate seriousness of dispute on facts. While this Court is not inclined to
pronounce on evidentiary value of these two applications, claimed by the University to be original applications, they do throw up serious doubt. Case of
the University made out is that next Vice-Chancellor had asked for original applications to be produced. Petitioner had said originals were lying in the
office of Vice-Chancellor. Two original applications have been produced, wherefrom it has not been submitted.
While one appointee is no longer with the University yet this Court cannot rely on these two documents with certainty as being original documents and
not brought into existence afterwards, since specific request for production was made by the University upon petitioner. This Court has no indication
as to what the facts are. Petitioner must find his remedy elsewhere as serious disputes on questions of fact prevents this Court from interfering. With
above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Connected application is also disposed of.