(1.) DR. Prasanto Chatterjee, the respondent No. 1 was a professor of history in Burdwan University. He retired on January 31, 1996. Prior to his superannuation he applied for re-employment for two years in terms of University Ordinance No. 10{t. U. ). His application was placed before the Screening Committee and thereafter before the Executive Council who rejected the same on the ground that his continued availability was not indispensable for the existing academic and research programme of the university. It was also observed in the said order that he did not fulfil the conditions laid down in G. O. No. 2883 (7) Edn. (U) dated November 15, 1979 read with ordinance No. 10 (T. U. ).
(2.) HE challenged the order of rejection by filing a writ petition. The learned single Judge allowed his writ petition by setting aside the order of the Executive Council coupled with a direction to the Executive council to pass necessary order of re-employment in the light of the judgment delivered by His Lordship. An appeal was preferred. The division Bench rejected the contention raised by the respondent No. 1 on the allegation of mala fide and bias. The Division Bench also held that it was not necessary to assign any reason for such rejection. After holding that, the order of rejection was not vitiated by malice or bias or for non-discloser of reasons. The Division Beach upheld the decision of the learned single Judge setting aside the order of rejection on the ground that the Government Order relied upon by the University was not existing on the day when he was considered. The Division Bench remanded the matter back to the University for being decided afresh in terms of Ordinance 10 (T. U. ). Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order of the Division Bench the respondent No. 1 filed a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed as withdrawn.
(3.) THE University considered his application afresh through the screening Committee and thereafter through the Executive Council. The Executive Council in a meeting held on July 9, 1998 resolved that the recommendation of the Screening Committee rejecting his application be accepted and such resolution of the Screening Committee was confirmed and he was accordingly not given the re-employment.