Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) By this writ application the resolution of the Screening Committee, dated 20th June, 1998 and the decision of the Executive Council dated 9th July 1998, the respondent, Burdwan University have been challenged and further asked for direction upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to give re-employment to the petitioner with retrospective effect from 1st February, 1996. The petitioner being an historian instead of writing history of battle and life profile of historical heroes and individuals has here written history of his legal battle he fought. This is his second-round battle in Court of law for establishing his claim of re-employment in the post of the Head of the History Department, Burdwan University. The fact of the case is more or less undisputed and the same is stated briefly as follows : In August 1961 petitioner joined University of Burdwan as lecturer in the Department of History. In course of time gradually he became Reader and Professor in the said Department and in fact he acted as head of the Department of History on several occasions from 1993-96. Till he attained his age of 60 years he held the office of the Head of the aforesaid Department. It appears his assumption of office of this status was not uneventful, as per his projection of career building, he was sought to be denied the aforesaid post, as a result whereof he had to come to this Court on or about 5h May, 1994 by filing a writ petition being Co. No. 13820 (W) of 1994. Ultimately he succeeded in the said writ petition. The University authority had to place him in the aforesaid office on regular rotational basis on or about 28th November, 1994.
(2.) Thereafter, it appears, he could not continue in this post without any litigation and from time to time he was disturbed. As such he came to this Court once against by filing another writ petition being No. C.O. 6039(W) of 1995 challenging the decision of Executive Council debarring him from all examination works for one year. He succeeded this time too in the said writ petition. This litigation presumably ensued because of university authority became adamant to illegally and unjustly victimise him. These are particulars of allegations of bias levelled by the petitioner. Before attaining his 60 years of age, he applied to the University authorities for his re-employment as per university Ordinance No. 10(TU) on 21st November, 1995 but the said authority refused such prayer. On 30th January, 1996, the petitioner attained age of superannuation and he in spite of his attaining age as aforesaid, is said to have been allowed to remain in this office upon taking classes till 27th February, 1996. On 12th February, 1996, the Executive Council of the University, accepting recommendation of the Screening Committee refused to re-employ him for initial period of two years with effect from 1st February, 1996.
(3.) Challenging the aforesaid decision the petitioner came to this Court by filing a writ petition and also prayed for an order of re-employment. On 24th December, 1997 the learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment and order allowed the writ petition rescinding and quashing the resolutions dated 7th March, 1996 and 12th April, 1996 of the Screening Committee as well as the Executive be Council of the University. By the said order the learned Single Judge directed to pass necessary orders for re-employment of the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid provision of law within 6 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The University authority preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned single Judge and the same was registered as MAT No. 44 of 1998. On 6th April, 1998 the Appeal Court allowed the appeal partly setting aside and reversing the direction of the learned Single Judge for re-appointment of the petitioner as a matter of course but affirming decision of rescinding and quashing of both the resolutions. The Appeal Court while disposing of the appeal gave the following direction, which are appropriately set out hereunder : "Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that interest of justice demands that a new screening committee be constituted and his case may be considered afresh at an early date and riot later than 3 weeks from the date of communication of this order in terms of the suggestion given by the learned Counsel for the appellant. We have no doubt in cur in that the Screening Committee and the Executive Council with a new Vice-Chancellor heading the said bodies shall act impartially, fairly and reasonably. As statutory functionaries they are to act most honestly and in an unbiased manner. The prayer of the writ petitioner for obtaining such reappointment must be considered on the relevant fact and a decision thereupon shall be taken on adopting objective criteria and not on whims and caprice. The Executive Council while considering the recommendations, in the event comes, to the conclusion that the petitioner fulfils the criteria, may allow him that first re-appointment for a terms of 2 years and continue to do the same, as if his case is being considered immediately on his retirement. His subsequent application for extension can be considered in similar fashion and for the purpose, the age bar may be relaxed, if permissible in law. The writ petitioner, in our opinion, is also entitled to exemplary costs Counsels fee assessed at 500 Gms." ;