DR. ACHINA KUNDU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for a declaration that the petitioner is not bound by an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in MAT No. 458 of 2016 and MAT No. 530 of 2016 and that the petitioner cannot be summoned by the committee constituted on the basis of the said order or be required to appear before the committee on the grounds which would be apparent in the following part of this judgment.

(2.) The order passed by the Division Bench was the result of an appeal filed by the private respondent nos. 7 and 8 herein from a dismissal of the writ petition filed by the said respondents by the Single Bench order dtd. 29/2/2016. Two writ petitions filed by the respondent nos. 7 and 8 were dismissed by orders dtd. 29/2/2016. The said respondents challenged the orders before the Division Bench wherein both the appeals were dismissed by the judgment and order dtd. 23/12/2016. While dismissing the appeals, the Division Bench directed constitution of a committee headed by the Judicial Secretary, Government of West Bengal, to revisit the allegations of discrimination against the private respondents/appellants after hearing all concerned parties as indicated in the body of the judgment.

(3.) The basis of the writ petitions culminating in the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is required to be briefly stated. The private respondents are part-time teachers of Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College and sought to take the benefit of a G.O. dtd. 11/1/2001 issued by the Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal. Under the said G.O., the Principal, Teachers and Librarian/Asst. Librarian having UGC prescribed qualifications and drawing UGC scale of pay on the date of the G.O. as well as non-teaching staff of Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College were brought under the purview of the West Bengal Non-Govt. Colleges (Payment of Salaries) Act, 1978 with effect from 1/4/2000 for payment of salaries on the terms and conditions stated in the said G.O. The private respondents filed the writ petitions also on the ground that the private respondents were similarly situated as other part-time lecturers of the College whose services had been regularized by the State Government. The private respondents hence alleged that they had been discriminated against. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the basis that the private respondents had not been able to establish that they possessed the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of lecturer and held that the private respondents cannot take the benefit of such alleged violation even if the other appointments were in violation of the relevant statutes.