ABHIJIT BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred at the instance of the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 11th March, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in W. P. No. 19303 (W) of 2005 whereby and whereunder the said learned judge finally disposed of the writ petition without granting any relief to the appellant herein.

(2.) THE appellant herein was appointed as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist pursuant to the letter of appointment dated 29th April, 2002 issued by the Registrar, jadavpur University. From the aforesaid offer of appointment it transpires that initially the appointment of the appellant was on probation for a period of one year and the services of the said appellant was also to be governed by the service Rules of the Jadavpur University. The aforesaid probationary period of the appellant was, however, extended for a period of six months w. e. f. 30th april, 2003 and subsequently, the Registrar of the Jadavpur University by the written communication dated 28th October, 2003 discharged the appellant from the services of the University in terms of Section 28 (3) of the Jadavpur University act, 1981. The aforesaid written communication of the Registrar dated 28th october, 2003 is set out hereunder: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_208_TLCAL0_2009Html1.htm</FRM> Challenging the aforesaid decision of the University, appellant herein filed the writ petition which was finally disposed of by the impugned order dated 11th March, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the order of termination issued to the appellant was infact not an innocuous order of termination simpliciter in accordance with the terms of appointment. Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel representing the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge should have examined the service records of the appellant in order to find out the real basis of the order of termination issued to the appellant herein. Mr. Bhattacharyya further submitted that in the present case, learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the form of the order of termination was merely a camouflage and the real basis of the said order of termination would have come to light if the said learned Judge had lifted the veil.

(3.) MS. Chameli Majumdar, learned counsel representing the respondent-Jadavpur university authorities, however, submitted that the appellant herein did not acquire any right to the post during the period of probation. Ms. Majumder further submitted that the appellant having no vested right over the post cannot maintain the writ petition and accordingly, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the same. The learned Counsel of the respondent-Jadavpur university authorities referred to and relied on a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Prasanta Banerjee vs. Oriental Insurance Company limited and Ors. reported in 2005 (3) C. H. N. 168 wherein this court observed: