- (1.) We have heard the appellant in person as well as learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 who are the contesting respondents. Respondent 5 is dead and as such his name has stood deleted from the array of parties. Other respondents though served, did not think it fit to appear and contest the proceedings and they are set ex parte.
(2.) A short question arises for consideration. The appellant had filed a writ petition being Matter No. 2307 of 1987 in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta bringing in challenge the permission granted to Respondent 6, Assistant Professor of Town & Regional Planning enabling him to appear at the Master of Town and Regional Planning (Sections C & D) Examination, which was conducted by Calcutta University. His submission was that Respondent 6 was not entitled to appear as a private candidate at the Section C Examination and without passing the same he could not appear at the Section D examination as Regulation 4(b) of the relevant Examination Rules promulgated by Calcutta University prohibited such a candidate.
(3.) The relevant facts leading to these proceedings are that the appellant as well as Respondent 6 herein are serving as Assistant Professors of the Town & Regional Planning Department of Bengal Engineering College, Shibpur. The said College was affiliated to Calcutta University at the relevant time. According to the appellant, Respondent 6 who was a full-time teacher in the Town & Regional Planning Department in the same College, was not entitled to appear at the Section C Examination as per the rules and regulations of the University and still the Principal of the College certified him to be fit and permitted him to appear at the examination in the year 1986-87. In the said petition, apart from Respondent 6, who was likely to be affected by the result of the writ petition, the appellant joined the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta; Principal of the Bengal Engineering College; State of West Bengal; the Secretary, Faculty Council of Postgraduate Studies in Sciences, Technology, Agricultural Engineering, Veterinary Science of the University of Calcutta and the Controller of Examination of the University of Calcutta. The writ petition remained lingering on the file of Calcutta High Court for a period of almost eight years. In the meantime, no counter was filed by any of the contesting respondents in spite of opportunity being given to them from time to time. Learned Single Judge thereafter took up the matter for final disposal. Relying on the relevant regulations governing the question in controversy learned Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant's writ petition deserved to be granted to limited extent namely that the authorities of the University were directed to consider the question of declaration of the result of Respondent 6 taking into consideration the representation of the appellant and to decide whether in view of the provisions of the University Act and other rules and regulations, Respondent 6 was entitled to appear in the examination in question. During the pendency of the consideration of the controversy before the authorities of the University, declaration of the result of Respondent 6 was directed to remain stayed. It was also further directed that while considering the question in controversy giving rise to the writ petition, the respondent authorities will afford opportunity to the appellant and Respondent 6 and thereafter would decide the representation regarding the controversy in question.;