DR. ARUN KUMAR GHOSH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against inaction on the part of the University of Burdwan in the matter of appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Reader in Post -Graduate Department in Bengali of the said University. The Burdwan University made a newspaper publication in April 1993 inviting applications from the intending candidates for the post of University Reader in the Post -Graduate Department in Bengali, in response to such advertisement the Petitioner made an application for the said post. So did others. A Selection Committee was constituted under Sec. 29(2) of the Burdwan University Act, 1981 for the selection of candidate for that post. The said Selection Committee included the Vice -Chancellor of the University as the Chairman of the Committee and other members, such as, Dr. Am it Mallick, Dean of the Faculty Council in Arts, Commerce etc., Dr. Pabitra Sarkar, Vice -Chancellor, Rabindra Bharati University and two others. On February 14, 1994 the Selection Committee held interview of candidates including the Petitioner. The Petitioner's contention is that on merit the Selection Committee selected the Petitioner and recommended his name to the Executive Council of the University but the Executive Council is sitting tight over the matter and is trying to take steps for inviting fresh applications for the post which they cannot do in view of Sec. 30(2) of the said Act.

(2.) Sec. 29(2) of the Burdwan University Act, 1981 provides that a University Reader or a University Lecturer shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Selection Committee consisting of persons mentioned therein. Therefore normally the Reader is to be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Where, however, the Executive Council does not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee Sec. 30(2) of the Act is attracted which runs thus:

(3.) The position, therefore, is clear that the Executive Council has to appoint a Reader in accordance with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. If, however, the Executive Council does not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee, in that case the Executive Council has no power either to sit tight over the matter for an indefinite period or to undo the entire exercise of the selection process culminating in the recommendation of the Selection Committee, by issuing fresh advertisement inviting applications de novo. If the Selection Committee recommends a candidate for the post of Reader but the Executive Council does not accept such recommendation, in that event under Sec. 30(2) the Executive Council has to refer the matter back to the Selection Committee for reconsideration with reasons for such reference and even if thereafter the Executive Council does not accept the reconsidered views of the Selection Committee the matter will have to be referred to the Chancellor with reasons and in that event the decision of the Chancellor shall be final. Once the matter is referred to Selection Committee for selection of candidate the question of fresh advertisement inviting fresh applications may arise if the Selection Committee recommends such course and the Executive Council accepts the same or where there is divergence of opinion between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council even after reconsideration of the matter by the Selection Committee under Sec. 30(2) and the matter is thereafter referred to the Chancellor under the said Sec. 30(2) and the Chancellor decides that the vacancy be readvertised inviting fresh applications. In the present case the Selection Committee made the recommendation on February 14, 1994 but the Executive Council was sitting tight over the matter as a result of which the Petitioner has to filed this writ petition.