- (1.) The above three writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner against the respondent no. 1 Bidhan Chandra Krishi Vishya Vidyalaya and its ViceChancellor and other officers. Since the disputes raised in all the three writ petitions arise out of the course of employment of the petitioner with the said University, all the three writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common judgment. The facts which are relevant for deciding the three writ petitions may be stated.
(2.) On December 11, 1972 the petitioner joined the University of Kalyani as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). In the year 1974, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Vishyavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent University"), the respondent No.1 in all the writ petitions, was set up by the Government of West Bengal. The petitioner together with some other officers of University of Kalyani were transferred to the respondent University. Thereafter, the petitioner opted for and remained in the service of the respondent University as its Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
(3.) In May, 1978 the respondent University re-designated the post of the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as Electrical Engineer and the petitioner became the Electrical Engineer of the respondent University. According to the petitioner, he was the sole person who discharged the responsibilities of both Civil Engineering and Electrical Engineering works of the respondent University. On August 29, 1990, the respondent University published an advertisement in a daily English newspaper inviting application for the purpose of filling up the post of 'University Engineer (Civil)'. The petitioner contended that he was the 'University Engineer (Civil)' and as such the respondent University had no right to appoint any other person as the 'University Engineer (Civil)'. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. 14739(W) of 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the first writ petition") before this Court and challenged the said newspaper advertisement. In the first writ petition, on September 24, 1992 a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an interim order of stay of operation of the said advertisement dated August 29, 1992 published in the newspaper pending disposal of the writ application. It was only March 18, 2015, when the counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court, that the said writ petition has become infructuous.;