PROBHAT KUMAR DAS Vs. UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the wards of the retired employees of the Burdwan University and is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents for revoking, cancelling or withdrawing the letter dated September 27, 2012 issued by the Registrar, Burdwan University and other consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE petitioners have contended that the respondent university published an advertisement dated February 10, 2009 for recruitment to the different posts as described in the Advertisement No.4 of 2008/09 of the respondent university. The petitioners applied for different posts and some of them got the admit card for the written tests. But, the petitioner no.s 2 & 4 were not given the admit cards due to over age. The petitioners have contended that by the Notification dated November 6, 1989, the then Registrar of the respondent university issued orders to the effect that the wards of the employees who will retire on superannuation within five years or have already retired during the last three years and have rendered at least 20 years of service at the University shall get a weightage in the matter of appointment in the University provided that the wards have the requisite qualification for appointment to the concerned posts and they qualify in the normal process of selection.

(3.) NOW , the question is whether the order passed by the Registrar suffers from arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the concerned Registrar of the respondent university has taken a right approach in compliance with the order dated June 5, 2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.14396(W) of 2010. It is pertinent to mention that while disposing of said writ petition, the learned Single Judge did not go into the merit of the application and simply directed to consider the representation of the petitioners. While complying with the said direction, the Registrar has observed that the petitioners do not come at all within the requirement of the notification dated November 6, 1989 for the respondent university and he has assigned reasons in support of his findings. Not only that, in my view, he has taken a right decision by expressing that the benefits to be given to the wards of the employee is nothing but a clear violation of right to equality and so, the respondent university did not choose to follow the said Notification of 1989.