AMIT BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner is directed against a judgement and order dated February 1, 2012 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No. 12726(W) of 2011. By the said judgement and order the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition with consequential orders. The appellant filed a writ petition inter alia, praying for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel or set aside an e-mail order dated July 1, 2011 and to allow him to perform his duties and obligations as the Vice Chancellor of the West Bengal Health Sciences University ( 'the University ', for short), a direction upon the respondents to pay remuneration and benefits attached to the concerned post till the completion of his tenure and other consequential reliefs. On February 3, 2011 the University issued a notification by which the appellant was appointed to the post of Vice Chancellor by the Executive Council. It was specifically mentioned that the appellant would hold the post of the Vice Chancellor for a period of three years from the date of his joining or attaining the age of 65 years whichever would be earlier. The appellant at that point of time was holding a teaching post at the G. B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi. He made necessary application to the appropriate authority seeking permission and deputation to join his new post. The Registrar of the University also had written to the said authority informing about the appellant 's appointment as the Vice Chancellor of the University.

(2.) FOR our present purpose we need not consider all the subsequent communications. The next communication of importance is a letter dated May 31, 2011 by which the Registrar of the University had requested the Additional Director General, Health Sciences and Dean, Moulana Azad Medical College, requesting him to release the appellant so that he might join the new post by June 15, 2011. The appellant in his turn had written to the Registrar that the matter relating to his release by the Government of NCT of Delhi was lying with its Chief Secretary who was at that point of time not in India. The appellant expressed that he would be able to join shortly with clearance from his cadre controlling authority and he was hopeful that he would be able to join within a few days after June 15, 2011. On June 3o, 2011 the Under Secretary to the Government of India wrote to the Special Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi to convey the permission of the competent authority to the appellant to take up the new assignment for a period of three years from the date immediately following his date of release by the Government of NCT of Delhi. On the same date the Deputy Secretary to the Government of NCT of Delhi had communicated to the Director, G. B. Pant Hospital that he had received a letter from the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi with a request to relieve the appellant with immediate effect with a direction to take up the new assignment on deputation basis for a period of three years from the date of relieving. Again on that very date, i.e., on June 30, 2011 the appellant had written to the Director, G. B. Pant Hospital referring to the concurrence of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and of the Government of NCT of Delhi and relinquishing charge with effect from July 1, 2011 as the Head of the concerned department.

(3.) THE grievances of the appellant is that he was never given any mandatory date or last date for joining his new assignment. THE Executive Council of the University also did not discuss anything about the date of the appellant 's assuming the charge of the Vice Chancellor of the University in its meeting held on June 23, 2011 nor was it put on the agenda of the proceedings. THE appellant alleged that the communication dated July 3, 2012 by the Registrar is the result of extraneous considerations. According to him this non-speaking e-mail order was issued without any sanction of any provision of law, and was without jurisdiction and was not based on any rational ground and was violative of the Constitutional guarantees.