IN RE DR MANISANKAR MAITI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the empanelment of the respondents Nos. 7 and 8 for the post of Principal of Tamralipta Mahavidyalaya (the College, for short) the petitioner has brought into fore a very important aspect relating to the possible area of discrimination. More importantly, the issue cropped up is with regard to the acceptability of the Doctorate Degree granted by the Netaji Subhas Open University (the University, for short) or at which level such degree is acceptable or liable to be discarded by a statutory body entrusted to find out the best merits for different academic posts relating to appointments in different colleges. In other words, the question that has cropped up boils down to whether the same degree can be said to be a valid one for a certain appointment and not a valid one for another level of appointment. Inextricably entwined with it is a question whether a degree can be said to have relative levels of validity for different categories of appointment. Can a degree be said to be valid for appointment to 'X' post and not recognizable for 'Y'? Can validity of a degree be differentiated in its application to appointment for various posts? Can such differentiation be called discrimination? These relevant issues are necessary to be examined in order to find out the challenge thrown out by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The facts of this case are more or less admitted. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the West Bengal College Service Commission i.e. the respondent No. 3, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 had applied for the post of the Principal of the College. In the panel prepared by the Commission, the respondent No. 7 topped the list; the respondent No. 8 occupied the 2nd position and the petitioner ranked 3rd. The respondent No. 7 has already joined another college as a Principal and is not interested to join the present college. Therefore, the respondent No. 8, i.e., Abdul Motin, becomes the first empanelled candidate and the petitioner's challenge is with regard to his selection.

(2.) Although the petitioner has introduced various aspects including alleged improper awarding of marks in favour of the respondent No. 8 vis-a-vis the petitioner's performance at the interview, this is not the subject-matter of serious challenge in the petition and the Court also cannot embark into any enquiry about the correctness of awarding of marks at an interview which pertains to the field of specialized expertise or expert job. It is now a settled principle of law that a Court should not substitute itself as an expert when a validly constituted expert body has assessed relative merits of the candidates and has awarded marks.

(3.) The only question that remains to be decided is whether the selection of the respondent No. 8 can be justified, he not having, as the petitioner alleges, the requisite qualification for such selection. It is also an admitted position that for the post of a Principal, possession of doctorate degree is an essential qualification. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 8 has his Ph.D. degree from the University and this degree having been declared by the Supreme Court as an inferior one the respondent No. 3, i.e., the College Service Commission was not justified in recognizing the same at par with a doctorate degree of any other University. This is all the more so because, the Commission itself does not recognize the doctorate degree of the said University as a valid degree for the purpose of appointment for the post of lecturer.