NIKHILES GUHA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KALYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner in this case is an academic and research scholar, and has served the University of Kalyani in the capacity of a professor of history since the year 1978. The petitioner claims to have been the head of the history department and also served as Chairman of the Undergraduate board of Studies as also the Post Graduate Board of Studies of the University in the past. He claims to be the author of several books and articles on indian history. In the writ petition, he has also highlighted several other achievements in his field of expertise.

(2.) THE petitioner was due to retire under the normal circumstances upon attaining the age of superannuation i. e. sixty years on 30th April, 2007. The dispute in the present writ petition is over his re-emptoyment in the same University, which is permissible under certain circumstances as per the regulation guiding the aspect of re-ernployrnent of a wholetime employee of the University. The relevant regulation appears to be University Ordinance 16 (USC), as described in the affidavit-in-opposition of the university authorities. I shall refer to the text, of the material portion of this ordinance in the later part of this judgment. It is the case of the petitioner that the university authorities had on their own invited from him an application for re-employment by a communication of the Deputy Registrar of the University issued on 30th November, 2006. The petitioner accordingly made the application. The petitioner however, was given re-employment for only one month, with effect from 1st May, 2007. The petitioner thereafter sent a notice to the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 29th May, 2007 through his learned Advocate pointing out thai his re-employment was contrary to the provisions of the University Ordinance. Under the provisions of the ordinance, re-employment can be made for a period of two years. It is the petitioner's contention that since the ordinance stipulates re-employment for a period of two years, the University authorities having decided on re-employment of the petitioner cannot re-employ him only for a month. The relevant provision of the Ordinance has been reproduced in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the University, and the same is set out below:-

(3.) BY a communication dated 31st May, 2007, the university authority informed the petitioner that the executive council of the Kalyani in its meeting held on 31st May, 2007 had resolved not to extend the benefit of re-employment to the petitioner with effect from 1st June, 2007. It is this decision which is under challenge in the present writ petition.