VISVA BHARATI Vs. BAIDYA NATH SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants say that the Court in exercise of its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not issue a writ of mandamus commanding an appointment to be given to a person initiating the writ proceedings. In isolation, the contention appears to be reasonable and is the generally accepted norm.

(2.) THE appellant university sought applications for a post reserved for scheduled Castes in the year 2003. On June 11, 2003 the first respondent-writ petitioner was called for an interview. Till or about 2006 no appointment was made and on a query from the writ petitioner the appellant university cited the failure of the University Grants Commission (UGC) to respond to a clarification sought by the university as the reason for the delay in appointment. It transpires that on February 26, 2006 the Selection Committee - comprising eminent personnel - forwarded a resolution. There is a dispute as to the tenor and interpretation of the resolution. The initial words of the resolution would suggest that a panel consisting of more than one name had been recommended, yet the photocopy of the resolution relied upon by the university shows only one person - Ajit Kumar Mondal - as the recommended candidate.

(3.) MONDAL did not respond to the letter of appointment apparently issued by the university. The writ petitioner inquired as to why upon Mondal not taking up the post, the writ petitioner had not been called upon to do so. The university replied that the Selection Committee had recommended a one-person panel and no name other than Mondal figured in it. The reply indicated that fresh applications would be invited for the post. The writ petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act and received a response that may be not be altogether irrelevant in assessing the matters in issue. The re-advertisement was issued on or about May, 2007. The first respondent challenged the re-advertisement and succeeded in having it quashed and a consequential direction given that the writ petitioner be issued the letter of appointment.