Dr. Sanatan Das vs The University Of Gour Banga & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2480 Cal

54   12-04-2023

      AKG                                      CAN 1 of 2023
                                                     In
     Ct. 238                                   WPA 24955 of 2022

                                              Dr. Sanatan Das
                                                    Vs.
                                      The University of Gour Banga & Ors.

                         Mr. Kallol Basu,
                         Mr. Suman Banerjee
                                                                   ...for the Petitioner
                         Mr. Joydip Kar,
                         Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri,
                         Mr. N. Roy
                                                                      ...for University


                         By filing this application in connection with the

                  main    writ   petition,     the    petitioner     has   prayed   for

                  restraining the respondents from suspending him on the

basis of a direction dated January 20, 2022, issued by

the State.

The petitioner, an Associate Professor of

Mathematics at the University of Gour Banga, was placed

under suspension on June 5, 2018 by the university. The

said suspension order was revoked subsequently on July

13, 2019, by the executive council of the university since

the committee found that no relevant documents were

found to frame the charges against the petitioner.

It appears that, thereafter, following an order of the

Higher Education Department dated December 7, 2020, a

four-member enquiry about committee was set up for

conducting an enquiry about the allegations levelled

against the university administration and its officials. The

committee in its report dated December 24, 2020, inter

alia, recommended placing the petitioner under

suspension immediately and initiating appropriate

disciplinary proceedings against him. The committee

further recommended that if the petitioner is found guilty

upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, he

should not be given the charge of the office of the

Controller of Examination and the university shall take

immediate steps for filling up the said post.

The writ petitioner filed a writ petition for a

direction to cancel the enquiry report and its

recommendation against the petitioner. The said writ

petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this

Court by an order dated February 8, 2022. The learned

Single Judge was pleased to observe, inter alia, that the

writ petition was premature as no steps had been taken

pursuant to the recommendation against the petitioner.

The present writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner with a prayer for cancelling a letter dated

September 6, 2022, issued by the vice-chancellor of the

university whereby the petitioner was restrained from

acting as a member of the executive council of the

university.

This Court, on November 18, 2022, passed an

interim order in this writ petition permitting the

petitioner to function and discharge all dues as a member

of the executive council. However, it was further directed

that the petitioner would not participate in the

deliberation or decision making process of the executive

council relating to the disciplinary proceedings against

him or any other issue involving him.

During the pendency of this writ petition, the

petitioner has been served with the letter dated March

30, 2023 asking him to attend a meeting scheduled to be

held on April 13, 2023. It appears that there are as many

as fourteen items on the agenda for the meeting, one of

which reads as follow :-

"To discuss the recommendations in connection with the Letter vide Ref. No. 131-Edn (U)/IU (GB)-07/2020, Dated - 20.01.2021 of the Higher Education Department, Govt. of West Bengal."

Mr. Kallol Basu, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner submits that the actions of the university are

malicious in nature. It is the reasonable apprehension of

the petitioner that he may be suspended by the executive

council in the meeting scheduled to be held on April 13,

2023. He submits that since the petitioner has previously

been suspended by the university, the attempt to

suspend the petitioner on the self-same allegation for the

second time would be absolutely illegal.

He also submits that a writ petition lies in

apprehension of suffering. In support of his submission,

Mr. Basu has relied upon the judgment reported at

(2016) 2 SCC 725 (Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala

Sangam v. State of T.N. ).

Mr. Basu has further placed reliance on the

judgment reported at (2015) 7 SCC 291 (Ajay Kumar

Choudhary v. Union of India) to argue that the

petitioner had already been under suspension for about

one year without any charge sheet being framed against

him. The petitioner cannot be subjected to further

suspension.

Mr. Joydip Kar, learned senior advocate appearing

for the university has submitted that the application is

not maintainable since it falls absolutely beyond the

scope of the writ petition. Mr. Kar has further submitted

that the petitioner has no cause of action to move this

application as the university has only decided to discuss

the recommendations in connection with the direction of

the State dated January 20, 2021, and no adverse

decision has been taken against the petitioner as yet.

Therefore, this application is premature. He further

submits that the petitioner in the earlier round of writ

petition could not sustain the challenge with regard to

the propriety of the recommendation of the committee.

Therefore, this application is barred by the principle of

res judicata as well as by the provision of Order 2 Rule 2

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

I am of the view that this application is not

maintainable. The scope of the main writ petition is

confined to examining the propriety of the letter dated

September 6, 2022 issued by the vice-chancellor whereby

the petitioner was restrained from acting as a member of

the executive council of the university. An interim order

can be passed only in aid of the final relief prayed in this

writ petition. The prayer made in the present application

goes beyond the scope of the original prayer of the main

writ petition. The petitioner cannot be allowed to enlarge

the scope of the writ petition by filing this application.

The order impugned in this application and in the writ

petition are not connected.

I am also of the view that no fault can be found

with the university in fixing an agenda to discuss the

recommendations of the committee following the directive

dated January 20, 2021, as mentioned above.

It cannot be said that the petitioner has been

prejudiced due to the fixing of the said agenda. Unless

the executive council decides anything infringing any

legal right of the petitioner, the petitioner has no right to

approach this Court.

In the facts of the case, the judgments relied upon

by the petitioner are of no relevance.

Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2023 is dismissed as not

maintainable.

This order, however, shall not preclude the

petitioner from challenging the decision that may be

taken by the executive council of the university in the

meeting scheduled to be held on April 13, 2023, which he

may perceive to be prejudicial to his any right or interest

by filing an appropriate application in accordance with

law.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)