Amit Talukdar, J. - (1.) APPLYING the test of Wednesbury reasonableness we are of the view that neither the decision reported by the Selection Committee nor that by the learned Single Judge can stand scrutiny in this intra-court Appeal for the reasons which we would conclude hereinbelow.
(2.) THE Appellant hereinabove is a professor of the Department of Soil nd Water Conservation in Bidhan Chandr Krishi Viswavidyalaya, (the Respondent no.2). Barring a brief stint before the Vkishwa Bharati University, he had practically spearheaded the Faculty in the said University and was the senior most of the Faculty members. In the year 2001 a Scheme was adopted by the Central Government which is known as Career Advancement Scheme which came into effect on 27th July, 1998. The Appellant who was a Reader in the said Faculty along with others were shortlisted for escalation to the Post of Professors. The first selection process on 10.5.2002 consisting of Four Member Selection Committee of whom the Respondent No.2 was one of the Members (Page 87 of the Paper Book) found the Appellant ??.needs further improvement?. Three members of the said Selection Committee recorded their dissent note with regard to the proposal regarding Prof. Chakravarti?s selection. Subsequently on 10.5.2005 the Selection committee again met. It is reflected from page 92 of the Paper Book that the Respondent No.2 in terms of the decision of the Selection Committee accorded the status of Professor to the Appellant with effect from 10.5.2005.
(3.) IN fact this is where exactly the entire scope of controversy arose that has pushed the fate of the Appellant before the Writ Court where reverses suffered by him propelled into the arena of this Appeal. It would be required by us to see as to whether on the basis of the existing situation that has been placed before us by way of the materials in the Paper Book vis-?-vis submissions made at the Bar the order under appeal can be sustained. Prof. Chakravarti, erstwhile Reader of the Department of Soil and Water Conservation being the senior most Member of the Faculty simply by virtue of the dent of his position cannot be said to lay any claim for the post of professorship. This is a question in issue. Neither it is the question in issue that Prof. Chakaravarti not being a Doctorate in his subject had guided a Research Scholar and is a very good teacher. Academic destination and achievement of Prof. Chakravarti cannot be brought to the fore within the limited scope of our discussion in this Appeal, where we would be required to test the reasonableness or otherwise of the entire exercise adopted by the authority concerned which has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. As we have seen that at the first instance the Selection Committee on 10.5.2001 found that Prof. Chakravarti, ??.needs further improvement?, and he was not consequently recommended for the post of Professor. Subsequently, it transpires that the Selection Committee again met on 10.5.2005 and recommended on 11.5.2005 that under the Career Advancement Scheme Prof. Chakravarti be elevated to the rank of Professor with effect from 10.5.2005. Retrospectivity or prospectivity of the position to the post of professorship of Prof. Chakravarti has formed a subject matter of controversy since then.;