RAMPRASAD DAS Vs. VISVA BHARATI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition the petitioner who was initially appointed to the post of lecturer in Viswa Bharati University (for short "the university") and subsequently placed in the senior scale lecturer, has challenged the action of the Selection Committee constituted by the university in not recommending him to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade). The grievance of the petitioner is two fold. According to him, since the petitioner belonged, to the scheduled caste category, the selection committee should have been constituted with a member of the scheduled caste community as postulated in paragraph 5.0.0 of the U.G.C. Notification on revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards of 1998 (for short "the UGC notification"). Therefore, such committee has no existence in the eye of law and any recommendation made is invalid. Moreover, assuming the selection committee was constituted validly, since the petitioner had submitted relevant documents, such as documents relating to educational qualification, self-appraisal report, document relating to attending seminar, those should have been considered. However, there is nothing to show from the minutes of the meeting, being annexure R-7 to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondents that the case of the petitioner was considered in the light of the documents submitted since under the scheme he has a legal right to be considered for the post in question.

(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the University referring to the U.G.C. notification submitted that the constitution of the selection committee was in accordance with the provisions contained in the Viswa Bharati Act, 1951 and as enumerated in paragraph 7.3.0 of the U.G.C. notification. Refuting the submission that the case of the petitioner was not considered by the selection committee, it was submitted that the petitioner should come out with a categorical case that he has a legal right to be promoted. Promotion to a particular post is not a personal right. Moreover, from the petition it is evident that the petitioner is the judge of his own cause. Submission has been made that since it is an academic matter and when decision recommending the respondent No. 7 to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) was made by the selection committee - an expert body, in view of the settled position of law, Court should not interfere. Learned senior advocate referred to the following judgments in support of his submission which are as under: Medical Council of India v. Sarang and Ors., 2001 8 SCC 427; University of Mysore v. Gouinda Rao,1965 AIR(SC) 486 Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., 1962 AIR(SC) 1044 Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha and Ors. v. Chancellor, Allahabad University and Ors., 1980 AIR(SC) 2141 Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust, 2001 5 SCC 486; Bittu Sehgal v. Union of India,2001 9 SCC 187; Surajdeo Singh v. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta, 2006 2 CalLJ 637 and Anil Kr. Shaw v. State of West Bengal, 2007 3 CalHN 1.

(3.) The issues which require consideration are (1) whether the selected committee was properly constituted under the UGC notification and (2) whether the case of the petitioner was considered by the selection committee.