The Calcutta High Court recently comprising of a bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj while taking note of a petition filed challenging the notification issued by State Government and signed by the Special Secretary to the Government reappointing respondent as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta asked West Bengal govt to file an affidavit in response to the same. (Anindya Sundar Das v. The State of West Bengal and others)
Facts of the case
In this petition, the petitioner has questioned the notification dated 27.08.2021 whereby respondent No.4 was re-appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta with effect from 28.08.2021 for a period of 4 years or till she attains 70 years whichever is earlier. The notification was issued by State Government and signed by the Special Secretary to the Government.
Contention of the Parties
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 8(1)(b) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 as amended from time to time, the power vests with the Chancellor to appoint the Vice-Chancellor which includes the power to re-appoint the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, bypassing the statutory provision, State or its Secretary could not have issued the notification for reappointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor for 4 years.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench taking note of the issue raised by the counsel for the petition remarked, “Learned Advocate General appearing for the State as also respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are granted four weeks time to file their affidavits-in-opposition. Thereafter, affidavit-in-reply may be filed by the petitioner within one week.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
