SAMARENDRA NATH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judges are only empowered to articulate and thus translate the intention of the legislature and fulfil the object of the Act, nothing more nothing less. The particular provision of a statute can not be isolated from the other parts of the statute for its interpretation or implementation. To view the Act as a whole one has to go through the entire statute. It is preamble objects and risk and to come to a conclusion true spirit behind enactment of such statute. To give interpretation of a particular provision so as to make it harmonious with the other provisions of the said statute and true spirit thereof and to find out the correct meaning of a particular provision, One has to go through the other provisions in the self same statute dealing with the similar circumstances. To make it known the statute itself has to be read as a whole.

(2.) The statutes relating to the appointment and terms and conditions of service of librarians and non teaching staff of Colleges other than Government Colleges stipulated in exercise of the power conferred by Clause O of section 47 read with section 48 of Burdwan University Act, 1981 has come up before me for consideration in this writ petition. Statute 6(1)(a) &(b) and 7(1) are relevant herein for discussion. The said two statute are quoted below for ready reference:-

(3.) Writ petitioner is a lower Division Clerk at Krishna Chandra College under the Burdwan University. He applied for the post of accountant on promotion. However, his case was rejected by the College on the ground that he did not have the requisite qualification of B.Com which according to the College authority was the eligible qualification for the post of accountant whereas Respondent No.8 who was a cashier, was laterally transferred and appointed as accountant. Respondent No.8 was having B.Com qualification. The action of the College has been challenged by the writ petitioner on two fold grounds:- Statute 7(1) has not specified any qualification. Hence, according to the writ petitioner, B.Com qualification stipulated in the Government Order can not be made applicable in respect of vacancies to be filled up under statute 7(1). The second ground on which the action has been challenged is that the appointment of Respondent No.8 was not on promotion but was a case laterally transfer as the Respondent No.8 who was a cashier did not come under statute 2B(I).