KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the award dated January 7, 1976 made by an Arbitration Tribunal; constituted under Sec. 35 of the Calcutta University Act, 1966 (W.B. II of 1966), has been sought to be challenged by the Petitioner Kanailal Chakraborty, a senior Professor of Mathematics in Narasinha Dutt College, Howrah. The Petitioner has also challenged the decision of the Governing Body of the said college on the basis of the said award and has prayed for relief by way of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, the then Principal of the Narasinha Dutt College by his letter dated July 31, 1958, appointed the Petitioner as the Assistant Professor of Mathematics on a whole time basis on and from August 1, 1958. He was to be on probation for one year and upon satisfactory report from the Head of the Department, he was to be confirmed in that post and would be entitled to all the privileges, that might be accrued to permanent staff of the said college. The scale of pay was also indicated in the said letter. By letter dated December 3, 1965, the Petitioner wrote to the Principal of the said College making a complaint that in spite of the decision of the Governing Body recommending the Petitioner as senior Professor to any other Professor, so far as Mathematics Department was concerned the Governing Body had placed his name in the acquittance roll chronologically just below the name of Professor Santosh Kumar Ghosh, who according to the Petitioner was junior in service to the Petitioner by 6 months. The Petitioner, therefore, asked for justice and fair play from the Governing Body of the said college. In 1971, the Governing Body at its meeting dated December 12, 1971, padded a resolution wherein the question of seniority of service of the Petitioner and that of Professor S.K. Ghosh in the Mathematics Department was specifically raised and considered and ultimately a resolution was passed by the Governing Body to the following effect:

(3.) Thereafter in July 1972, the Principal of the college received a communication from the Inspector of Colleges and the same was forwarded to the Petitioner by the Principal 's letter dated July 28, 1972. Obviously, the contents of the letter show that S.K. Ghosh made a representation to the University authorities and pursuant thereto the Inspector of College intimated the Principal and Secretary as follows: