Professor Tapas Chakraborty vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Aniruddha Roy, J. :

Upon urgency being shown and since regular determination has been assigned before this Bench, the matter has been taken up for consideration after being satisfied with the urgency involved therein.

Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, is taken on record.

At the threshold learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jaydeep Kar submits that, the writ petitioner shall relinquish prayer (d) to the writ petition along with all supportive averments made in the writ petition. The petitioner shall not press for prayer (d).

In view of the above, the writ petition henceforth shall continue without prayer (d).

The petitioner has been appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology (hereinafter, the University). The appointment was made in an exceptional situation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The relevant orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard are July 8, 2024 passed in Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023, Annexure-P3 at page 27 to the writ petition and the order dated July 29, 2024, Annexure-P4 at page 51 to the writ petition.

The crux of the issue in this writ petition is whether the petitioner would retire at the age of 65 years which would be arrived at on September 8, 2026 by the petitioner or the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor would retire after attaining the age of 70 years.

The relevant portion from the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated July 29, 2024, Annexure-P4 at page 51 (page 53) is quoted below :

Referring to the above orders learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jaydeep Kar appearing for the petitioner submits that, the expression “remaining Universities” used in paragraph 3 of the order dated July 29, 2024 includes the University in question where the petitioner is the existing Vice-Chancellor.

Mr. Kar then refers to the Letter of Appointment dated August 12, 2026, Annexure-P6 at page 65 to the writ petition and submits that, the said Letter of Appointment mentions the date of retirement of the petitioner would be at the age of 65 years and the petitioner shall attain 65 years on September 8, 2026, which is contrary to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the instant writ petition.

Mr. Sauvik Nandy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State submits that, the retirement age of the petitioner must be governed by the provisions laid down under the West Bengal University of Technology Act, 2000 (for short the said 2000 Act), which is 65 years. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nandy further submits that, the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was made in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot override the statutory provisions.

Mr. Sauvik Nandy, learned Senior Advocate for the State further submits that, the said 2000 Act has not yet been amended and it still provides for the age of retirement as 65 years and not 70 years or otherwise. He submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also directed to follow the Statute of 2019 as amended. He further submits that, the petitioner had accepted the said Appointment Letter dated August 12, 2026 and had acted thereupon by joining at the post of Vice-Chancellor and, therefore, at this belated stage the petitioner cannot challenge the age of retirement mentioned in the said letter of appointment, which is otherwise in terms of the statute.

Ms. Nandini Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the University submits that, the University has been working without a permanent Vice-Chancellor for a substantial period of time, which in effect would affect the administration of the University and the same would in effect also affect the interests of the students at large. The Executive Council has not yet been framed after its term having been expired in 2022. As such, the recruitment is also at stake.

Mr. Pijush Biswas, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner assisting Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate submits that, the petitioner denies and disputes the submissions made on behalf of the State.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that, under an exceptional circumstance Hon’ble Supreme Court had exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 3 from the order dated July 29, 2024, as quoted above, has specifically stated that, for the remaining Universities the age of retirement of the Vice-Chancellors shall be 70 years.

Furthermore, paragraph 10 of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated July 8, 2024 (at page 35) of the writ petition, inter alia, records as under :

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that, if the State insists upon the age of retirement of the petitioner to be 65 years and not 70 years, it shall take clarification from the Hon’ble Supreme Court but till then, no effect shall be given to the Letter of Appointment dated August 12, 2026, insofar as the retirement age of the petitioner being 65 years mentioned therein.

Since the affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in this writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

With the above observations and directions this writ petition, WPA 23785 of 2026 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

Parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties on usual undertaking.