SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI,J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to quash the entire proceeding leading to the termination of service of the petitioner and to reinstate him to the post he held and to release the arrear salaries with interest and for other reliefs.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was appointed as a whole time teacher in Maheshtala College when the department of Journalism and Mass Communication was opened in the said college. At the time of appointment his salary was Rs. 4,000/ per month. In spite of his discharging satisfactory duties the Principal of the college without assigning any reason had reduced his salary. But because of the compulsion of livelihood he had to accept the same at the reduced rate. On March 9, 2006 the petitioner had received a letter containing certain allegations against him and he was informed that till decision of the Governing Body is taken all his assignments as Guest Lecturer stood withdrawn with immediate effect. The petitioner sent a letter of protest through his learned advocate. The college had informed the learned advocate that a meeting of the Governing Body was held on March 20, 2006 where it was unanimously resolved to terminate the contractual assignment of the petitioner as a Guest Lecturer. The petitioner has challenged this decision by alleging that he was not appointed as a Guest Lecturer but as a whole time Lecturer and was given the overall charge of the department. But the college authorities as per their convenience designated him as a Part time Lecturer or a Guest Lecturer. According to him the notice dated March 16, 2006 issued by the petitioner had been suppressed in order to pass the resolution in their favour and the petitioner 's service was terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing. He has filed the present writ petition with the allegations as mentioned.
(3.) THE respondents nos. 4 and 5, i.e., the Board and the President of the Governing Body have filed an affidavit inopposition denying the allegations made by the petitioner. They had denied that the letter dated June 10, 2003 was a letter of appointment but it was an offer letter for appointment subject to issue of appointment letter. It has been asserted that the petitioner was never paid any salary but an honorarium. The allegation of deduction of salary is false and his consolidated honorarium was fixed at Rs. 2,000/ per month. The answering respondents had referred to a letter dated February 27, 2006 written by the petitioner to the Principal of the college. According to them this was done with a purpose of filing the present application. The respondents have further denied that the service of the petitioner has not been terminated and no question for that arises since he was not a permanent Lecturer of the college. The appointment letter will clearly show that the petitioner was appointed as a Parttime Lecturer at a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 2,000/ per month. The fact remains that in the meeting of the Governing Body held on March 20, 2006 the President of the Governing Body placed a letter which was duly recorded in the Minutes of the Governing Body. Since his academic and other assignments as a Guest Lecturer has been withdrawn there is no question of reinstating him. Therefore, giving of any opportunity to the petitioner does not arise. They have prayed for the dismissal of the petition.;