Dr. Arun Kumar Ghosh vs University of Burdwan

Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.—This writ petition is directed against inaction on the part of the University of Burdwan in the matter of appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Reader in Post-Graduate Department in Bengali of the said University. The Burdwan University made a newspaper publication in April 1993 inviting applications from the intending candidates for the post of University Reader in the Post-Graduate Department in Bengali, in response to such advertisement the Petitioner made an application for the said post. So did others. A Selection Committee was constituted u/s 29(2) of the Burdwan University Act, 1981 for the selection of candidate for that post. The said Selection Committee included the Vice-Chancellor of the University as the Chairman of the Committee and other members, such as, Dr. Am it Mallick, Dean of the Faculty Council in Arts, Commerce etc., Dr. Pabitra Sarkar, Vice-Chancellor, Rabindra Bharati University and two others. On February 14, 1994 the Selection Committee held interview of candidates including the Petitioner. The Petitioner''s contention is that on merit the Selection Committee selected the Petitioner and recommended his name to the Executive Council of the University but the Executive Council is sitting tight over the matter and is trying to take steps for inviting fresh applications for the post which they cannot do in view of Section 30(2) of the said Act.

Section 29(2) of the Burdwan University Act, 1981 provides that a University Reader or a University Lecturer shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Selection Committee consisting of persons mentioned therein. Therefore normally the Reader is to be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Where, however, the Executive Council does not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee Section 30(2) of the Act is attracted which runs thus:

30(2). If the Executive Council does not accept the recommendation of a Selection Committee, it shall refer the recommendation back to the Selection Committee with reasons for reconsideration and if the Executive Council does not accept the reconsidered views of the Selection Committee, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor with reasons and the decision of the Chancellor shall be final.

The position, therefore, is clear that the Executive Council has to appoint a Reader in accordance with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. If, however, the Executive Council does not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee, in that case the Executive Council has no power either to sit tight over the matter for an indefinite period or to undo the entire exercise of the selection process culminating in the recommendation of the Selection Committee, by issuing fresh advertisement inviting applications de novo. If the Selection Committee recommends a candidate for the post of Reader but the Executive Council does not accept such recommendation, in that event u/s 30(2) the Executive Council has to refer the matter back to the Selection Committee for reconsideration with reasons for such reference and even if thereafter the Executive Council does not accept the reconsidered views of the Selection Committee the matter will have to be referred to the Chancellor with reasons and in that event the decision of the Chancellor shall be final. Once the matter is referred to Selection Committee for selection of candidate the question of fresh advertisement inviting fresh applications may arise if the Selection Committee recommends such course and the Executive Council accepts the same or where there is divergence of opinion between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council even after reconsideration of the matter by the Selection Committee u/s 30(2) and the matter is thereafter referred to the Chancellor under the said Section 30(2) and the Chancellor decides that the vacancy be readvertised inviting fresh applications. In the present case the Selection Committee made the recommendation on February 14, 1994 but the Executive Council was sitting tight over the matter as a result of which the Petitioner has to filed this writ petition.

The plea taken by the University is two-fold. The first plea taken by the University is that the Selection Committee did not make any clear-cut recommendation in favour of the Petitioner and therefore the Petitioner cannot make any grievance if he is not offered appointment by the Executive Council. The other aspect of the plea taken by the University is that the Petitioner does not satisfy the minimum qualification regarding the experience of teaching and/or research. The relevant clause of the requirement regarding the eligibility for the post of Reader in the University is as follows:

Good academic record with a Doctoral Degree or equivalent published work. Candidates from outside the University system in addition shall also possess at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at the Master''s degree level.

Eight years'' experience of teaching and/or research including upto three years for research degree and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by the quality of publications, contribution to educational renovation, design of new courses and curricula.

It is the contention of the University that the requirement of ''eight years'' experience of teaching and/or research including upto three years for research degree'' has not been satisfied so far as the candidature of the Petitioner is concerned and as such he is not qualified for appointment to the post.

At this stage we may also look to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee which runs thus, vide Y to the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on behalf of the University:

Recommendations - After considering the particulars of all candidates who appeared for the Selection Committee and were interviewed, the Committee resolved that the following be recommended for appointment to Readership in Bengali in order of preference:

Panel of candidates selected and recommended.

The experts strongly felt that Sri Arun Ghosh was by far the better candidate between the two who appeared for the interview and hence were favourably disposed to recommend Selection for the post, subject to fulfilling the latest U.G.C. guideline, on the length of research experience for the post of Readership. At the same time the experts felt that the length of research experience should be counted from the day one is appointed to a research position. In addition the experts recommended suitability on the basis of interview and quality of publication of the candidate.

The committee was of the view that the technical point raised regarding length of research experience which is essential in making the selection be looked into.

It has been sought to be argued on behalf of the University that the above does not constitute any recommendation of the Selection Committee in favour of the Petitioner Dr. Arun Kr. Ghosh. I, however, find it difficult to agree with this argument. The recommendation in favour of the writ Petitioner is rather eloquent and vocal. The only technical aspect pointed out by the Selection Committee was regarding the length of research experience which according to the Selection Committee has to be counted from the day when one is appointed to research position. Well, if the Executive Council did not agree with the opinion expressed by the Selection Committee it was free to refer the matter back to the Selection Committee with reasons for reconsideration which the Executive Council did not do. However, the objection of the University has been clearly articulared in para. 3(A) of their affidavit-in-opposition. The research and professional experience of the Petitioner has been described in para. 7 of his bio-data which was submitted by the Petitioner while applying for the post of the Reader. There he has described his research and professional experience thus:

(a) Khaira Research Scholar - University of Calcutta, from 1979 to 1982.

(b) Research Scholar - Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, from 1983 to 1984.

(c) Senior Scholar - Department 6f Ethnolinguistics, Netaji Institute for Asian Studies, Calcutta from 1984 to 1987.

(d) Six years'' professional experience as Assistant Professor of Ethnolinguistics, Netaji Institute for Asian Studies, Calcutta, (joined in 1987).

Since 1987 he has been serving - and was serving even on the date of his interview in February 1994 - as the Assistant Professor of Ethnolinguistics, Netaji Institute for Asian Studies, Calcutta. His research experience from 1979 to 1987 in three places covers 8 years. His teaching experience from 1987 till the date of interview in 1994 covers about another 7 years. The qualification required, as we have seen, is, however, 8 years'' experience in teaching and/or research. The Petitioner''s case is that he satisfies the minimum requirement on that score by a wide margin in his favour. The contention of the University on the other hand is that the Petitioner obtained his Doctoral Degree from the Calcutta University in 1991 and therefore, for his research experience upto 1991 he Is entitled to get the benefit of only three years In the maximum as has been prescribed in connection with the required qualification. It is the further contention of the Respondent University that from 1991 till 1994 his teaching experience covers only another three years and therefore a total period of 6 years (3+3) only is available to his credit for his teaching and/or research experience which is short of the minimum requirement of eight years of teaching and/or research experience, by two years.

For research as Khaira Research Scholar the Petitioner submitted his thesis in June, 1984 as is the case of the Petitioner and as appears from annexure-x to the affidavit-in-reply. The result of the examination of the thesis was, however, declared by the University of Calcutta in 1991. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that since the Petitioner submitted his thesis as far back as in 1984 he cannot be made responsible for the delay make by the University In publishing the result of the examination of the thesis. As we have seen, the Petitioner was awarded the Doctoral degree on that thesis in 1991. It is needless to mention that the research work relating to that thesis was completed by the Petitioner by 1984 when he submitted the thesis and therefore any period taken by the University to publish the result on that thesis should not be reckoned to the disadvantage of the Petitioner as if the period of research of obtaining the Doctoral degree on that thesis continued upto the date on which the University awarded the Doctoral degree to him on that thesis. The Petitioner cannot be made responsible for the delay made by the University in declaring the result. In my opinion, the period of research experience to be limited to three years for the Doctoral Degree in virtue of the qualification prescribed for the post may be confined only upto 1984 when the Petitioner submitted his research thesis on the basis of which he was subsequently awarded Doctoral degree. As we have seen, during the period from 1987 till the date of interview the Petitioner was engaged in teaching as Assistant Professor of Ethnolinguistics, Negaji Institute for Asian Studies, Calcutta. That period covers nearly seven years. Therefore three years'' research experience upto 1984 for the Doctoral degree and subsequent teaching experience for seven years for the period from 1987 to 1994 -- (even without taking into consideration the research experience of the Petitioner for the period from 1984 to 1987) -- make a total period of 10 years (3+7) to the credit of the Petitioner for his ''teaching and/or research experience'' whereas the minimum period of eligibility on the said score is only eight years.

It is the contention on behalf of the University that since the Petitioner obtained his Doctoral degree only in 1991 the period from 1987 to 1991 claimed by the Petitioner to be covered by his teaching experience is not tenable in view of the position that the period prior to 1991 is to be treated as covered by research assignment and therefore during the same period he cannot claim the benefit of teaching experience. This plea, in my considered opinion, is wholly untenable, if not mischievous also. It is a matter of plain fact that from 1987 to 1991 the Petitioner worked as Assistant Professor of Ethnolinguistics in Netaji Institute for Asian Studies and during that period he did not do any research work. The fact that the Doctoral degree on the basis of research done earlier was awarded to the Petitioner only in 1991 long after the thesis for the same was submitted by him does not and cannot by any semblance of logic eclipse the period of his teaching experience acquired in the years 1987 to 1991 during which period he did not do any research work and was rather engaged in teaching. It will be a mischievous argument to say that the whole period of the unusual delay in awarding the Doctoral degree after submission of thesis should be treated as covered by research assignment relating to that Doctoral degree and for that period or any part thereof the Petitioner cannot be awarded the benefit or the credit of any teaching experience even when as a matter of fact he engaged himself in teaching work during such period and not in research work. Was it expected that even when he had finished the research work and had submitted the thesis the Petitioner should have kept himself idle thereafter without doing any work or job and should have been waiting for the award of Doctoral degree before taking up any new assignment ? ''Certainly not'', must be the only answer. I am therefore clearly of the opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of his teaching experience for the whole of the period from 1987 to 1994 for the purpose of determining whether he satisfies the prescribed requirement regarding teaching and/or research experience. Accordingly I find that the University is wholly unjustified in thinking that the Petitioner does not have the requisite ''teaching and/or research experience'' for six years. In fact, as I have already recorded, the Petitioner has more than that period to his credit on account of ''teaching and/or research experience''. There is therefore no reason why the Executive Council of the University should not give appointment to the Petitioner in the post of Reader. Since the point on which the University was hesitant to give appointment to the Petitioner in the post of Reader relates to a pure question of interpretation and since this Court on consideration of the matter has resolved that question as recorded above, there is no point in asking the Executive Council to refer the matter again to the Selection Committee. In this connection it may be noted here that the Respondent No. 8 Dr. Pabitra Sarkar, Vice-Chancellor, Rabindra Bharati University who was a member of the Selection Committee has affirmed an affidavit supporting the case of the Petitioner. On the other hand the affidavit on behalf of the Respondent Burdwan University and its Vice-Chancellor has been affirmed not by the Vice-Chancier nor by the Registrar but by a Junior Assistant in the Office of the Registrar which is must say is something very unusual. Be that as it may, in view of the findings I have recorded above in favour of the writ Petitioner 1 direct the Respondents University authorities including the Executive Council to issue appointment letter in favour of the Petitioner for the post of Reader within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No cost is ordered.