BHRAMAR BHANDARI Vs. VISVA BHARATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this proceeding, the petitioner has questioned the decision of the Visva Bharati University dated 23rd July 2012 issued by its Registrar by which the petitioner has been discharged from service as his appointment has not been confirmed following his period of probation. The reason for this, as disclosed in the said decision, is his general unsuitability for the post of conservation assistant, to which he was appointed on probation upon going through a regular selection process on 10th February 2011. This reason has been disclosed in the said communication addressed to the petitioner on 23rd July, 2012, discharging him from his service with effect from 10th August, 2012. The letter of appointment of the petitioner dated 10th February, 2011, stipulated, inter alia:

(2.) IN connection with the said writ petition, the university had taken out an application for vacating the interim order which was originally granted on 6th August, 2012, staying the order dated 23rd July, 2012. This application has been registered as CAN 8088 of 2012. In this application, it has been disclosed that a committee had been set up to look into the academic activities of the petitioner since his appointment, and process of his appointment to the said post. The said committee recorded that the petitioner did not have any knowledge of chemistry as was stipulated in the advertisement inviting applications for the said post and he did not have experience or expertise in the field of conservation of museum objects. The university authorities also obtained information from the Adhyaksha, Rabindra Bhavana as to whether his performance as conservation assistant was satisfactory or not when he was functioning there and obtained a negative response. The other factor referred by the petitioner to sustain his case of mala fide is the enquiry conducted against him on the allegation of causing harassment to said Mira Ruidas. In relation to this proceeding, it has been pleaded in the writ petition that a fact -finding committee was constituted by the university and such committee found the allegations of said Mira Ruidas to be false. On a further complaint filed by said Mira Ruidas before the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India as well as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes cell, a grievance committee was constituted, which conducted further enquiry. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the said Committee had not given their finding. The stand of the university however is that the grievance committee had reported that the behavior of the petitioner appeared to be serious and special attention was needed to curb such type of criminal activities.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents main case has been argued by Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned counsel for the university. It has been submitted by him that the executive council had approved discharge of service and non -confirmation of the petitioner and resolution to that effect was taken on 16th September, 2012. Earlier, though the impugned letter was issued by the Registrar, the Vice -Chancellor of the university had examined the recommendation of the Registrar and authorised him to discharge the petitioner from service. Thus, according to the respondents, the jurisdictional question in issuing the termination letter is no more open for examination. It has been further submitted that the petitioner's discharge was not on the allegation of any misconduct but it was a case of termination simpliciter on overall assessment of the performance of the petitioner and hence question of violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be urged. On the issue of grant of increment, contention of the university is that this was done bona fide and not to discriminate against the petitioner.