- (1.) Alleging inaction and indifference on the part of the respondent-authorities and seeking direction upon them to allow the petitioner to continue in the Department of Microbiology as a faculty thereof, the petitioner approached this court with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Grievance of the petitioner relates to alleged consistent indifference on the part of the State-respondents in appreciating the educational background and experience of the writ petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Botany as far back as in 1987. He holds the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Science) in Botany. A proposal was initiated for having a Microbiology department in the college. Inspection was held on 19th May, 2000. THE Inspection Team recommended that the college be granted extension of affiliation of Microbiology (General and Honours) provisionally for three (3) years with effect from the 2000-2001 subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. THE Governing Body of the college resolved to allow the petitioner to continue as Head of the Department of Microbiology. Steps were also directed to be initiated for his re-designation. THE Principal of the respondent-college requested the petitioner to act as the In-charge of Microbiology Department. On 31st August, 2001, the Principal requested the Director of Public Instruction to convert the post of Lecturer in Botany to that of Microbiology and re-designate the petitioner accordingly. Strong recommendation was made by the Principal in favour of the petitioner. On 11th September, 2009, the Principal again wrote to the Director of Public Instruction wherein emphasis was laid on the indispensable contribution made by the petitioner. On 18th September, 2002, the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal wrote to the D.P.I. intimating thereby that conversion of the petitioners post cannot be done. On 27th November, 2002, the Principal again wrote to the D.P.I. wherein the valuable contribution of the petitioner was once again highlighted. On 21st December, 2004, the petitioner made a representation before the Respondents/Principal ventilating his grievance and urging implementation of certain works relating to the department of Microbiology. On 17th March, 2005, a Government Order was issued sanctioning two posts of permanent lecturers in Microbiology. THE petitioner accordingly approached the Principal for inducting him in one of the said two posts. This was again forwarded to the D.P.I. with the request to re-designate the petitioner in one of the sanctioned posts. THE Principal asked the petitioner for certain information and sought for his valuable comments regarding M.Sc. (P.G.) Microbiology. THE petitioner responded to the said request. He was invited to attend the Governing Body meeting on 15th July, 2005 as Invitee. THE Principal informed the petitioner that as per the resolution taken in the G.B. Meeting held on 15th July, 2005, the petitioner was to act as Incharge of P.G. Course in Microbiology along with undergraduate Course and to act as the Head of the Department of Microbiology. THEre was again a further round of representation submitted by the petitioner and further recommendation made by the Principal in regard to re-designation. On 17th April, 2006, the D.P.I. issued Memo No.638-UGC/4P-259UGC/99(Pt-3) saying that the proposal for redesignation was under consideration. On 6th July, 2006, the Principal took out notice undermining the petitioners position as Head of the Department of Microbiology. In Academic Sub-committees meeting on 01.08.2006 and 21.11.2006, the Principal started proclaiming himself to be the Head of the Department of Microbiology. THE petitioner again submitted a representation even before the Vice-Chancellor, Academic, Calcutta University. On 12th February, 2007, D.P.I., issuing a Memo asked the Principal to submit certain documents. On 23rd April, 2007 another representation was submitted by the petitioner. But on 22nd of September, 2007, an advertisement was published inviting candidates for interview for the post of Lecturer in Microbiology and this was done by the Principal without even consulting the petitioner. On 17th February, 2009, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 14th February, 2009 thereby reverting him to the Department of Botany. On 18th February, 2009, the petitioner made a representation against such decision of reversion as per letter dated 14th February, 2009. On 27th February, 2009, the petitioner was served with another letter dated 23rd February, 2009 issued by the Principal asking the petitioner to join in the Department of Botany first without considering his representation. THE petitioner claimed that in view of his long association in the Department of Microbiology and his contribution in the said department, it will not be just and proper on the part of the respondent-authorities to shift him back to the Department of Botany and that too, just two years prior to his retirement. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contested the case by filing Affidavit-in-Opposition thereby denying, inter alia, all the material allegations made by the petitioner. It was emphatically mentioned that the petitioners prayer purely based on legitimate expectation does not deserve to be entertained and dismissal of the application was so prayed for. The crux of the controversy in this case is how far a claim on the basis of legitimate expectation can be entertained. Mr. Rai appearing as learned Counsel for the petitioner, while assisting his senior Mr. Ghosh, submitted that the petitioner had not sought for any appointment but he had approached this court with the prayer for conversion. He submitted that there could be no reason for standing in the way since such conversion had been allowed in some other matters. It was further contended that there had been no delay on his part in knocking the doors of the court.
(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Botany on 10th August, 1987, on the recommendation of the College Service Commission (Annexure P-1). It was claimed that with the hard work and untiring efforts of the petitioner, the Department of Microbiology was set up in the respondentcollege. An Inspection Team visited the college on 19th May, 2000. While seeking extension of affiliation in Microbiology (General and Honours), the petitioner, Dr. Ananta Kumar Das, was recognized as a teacher in Microbiology and not Botany. It was commented that one full time teacher from the Botany Department who has experience in Microbiology teaching and research to be allowed to the Microbiology Section for making necessary arrangement and starting the department. Mr. Rai submitted that the resolution of the General Body Meeting dated 12th September, 2000 virtually approved continuation of the petitioner as the Head of the Department of Microbiology. It was only on 14th February, 2009 (Annexure P-36) that the term temporary charges was first introduced by the College- Authorities. Referring to Annexure P-15 at page 62 of the writ application, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it would reflect appreciation of the petitioners contribution made by the respondent No.1, the Principal and the petitioner was requested to take steps for introduction of M.Sc. Course in Microbiology. From the hand-written note of the petitioner in such document, being Annexure P-15, it could be seen that the petitioner was reluctant to take additional responsibilities regarding Microbiology Course. This is further reflected in the documents being Annexure P-16 and P-17. The Governing Body in its meeting dated 15th July, 2005 resolved, as revealed from Annexure P-22, that the petitioner be entrusted to look after the Post Graduate Section of the Department of Microbiology along with Head of the Department function of Undergraduate Section of the Department of Microbiology. In the same resolution, the Principal was requested to take up the matter with the Education Department regarding re-designating Dr. Ananta Kumar Das from Reader in Botany to Reader in Microbiology against the newly created sanctioned post of Microbiology Department. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the entire situation is required to be analyzed in the context of such consistent reluctance on the part of the petitioner and the conduct on the part of the respondent-college authorities. Referring to the letter of the Director of Public Instruction dated 15th January, 2009, it was submitted that it was bad in law inasmuch as it was premature. By the said letter, the Director of Public Instruction communicated the college authorities that the proposal for conversion is not acceptable as per relevant government order of Higher Education Dept. vide Memo No.1174-Edn.(CS) dated 18.9.2002. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the said communication further on the ground that there had been no re-consideration of the proposal. It was submitted that the proposal for reconsideration for re-designation of the petitioner from the post of Reader in Botany to Reader in Microbiology, which was sent to the Higher Education Dept. for reconsideration, was still awaiting decision. It was contended by Mr. Rai that such letter speaks that the proposal for conversion of the petitioners post (Reader in Botany to Reader in Microbiology) had not been accepted in view of G.O. No.1174/Edn. (CS) dated 18th September, 2002 of the Higher Education Dept. meaning thereby that the D.P.I. issued the letter on the basis of G.O. dated 18th September, 2002. The matter thus could very well be presumed to be under reconsideration. It was submitted that the petitioner was asked to continue for more than eight and half years as teacher of Microbiology and this was allowed taking into consideration his qualification and experience. Thus, it was his legitimate expectation to continue further in the said post. On behalf of the petitioner, it was then submitted that the respondent-authorities had all along assured the petitioner that he would be absorbed in the Department of Microbiology. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Confederation of Ex-servicemen Associations and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., 2006 8 SCC 399, it was submitted by Mr. Rai that the court may not in all cases insist an administrative authority to act judicially but may still insist it to act fairly. It was held: The doctrine of legitimate expectation is the latest recruit to a long list of concepts fashioned by the courts for review of administrative actions. No doubt, the doctrine has an important place in the development of administrative law and particularly law relating to judicial review. Under the said doctrine, a person may have reasonable or legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no right in law to receive the benefit. It was further held:;