ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) The Court:- Writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. Private respondent No. 11 goes unrepresented though he was earlier represented. Submissions made on behalf of petitioner stand recorded in orders dated 16th January, 2018, 1st February, 2018 and 8th February, 2018.
(2.) Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel, appears on behalf of State and submits, impugned order should not be interfered with. He demonstrates from parts of the impugned order how several allegations have been dealt with to come to the finding that Governing Body should be replaced by an administrator. He refers to that part which deals with allegations of financial irregularities. The reasons given, he submits, would appear from extracts below. "The petitioners have submitted the copy of the detailed proceedings of four Finance Committee meetings from which it reveals that save and except on 20.01.2017 no Finance Committee meetings was held in 2017, which points towards irregular financial transactions of the college. .............................................................. The petitioners have also enclosed a detailed list of tenders called in this year regarding various works of the college, from which it reveals that all tenders were actually posted only in their Colleges' website. Wide circulation of tenders was attempted. ........................................................ It is also evident place that the resolution taken on 08.12.2015 regarding the expenses to be made for NAAC Peer team visit was confirmed in subsequent GB meeting and thus the expenditure remained unauthorized."
(3.) He goes on to submit while relying upon page 5 of impugned order, the same teacher was given position of Convenor of Finance Committee, Bursar of the College as well as Convenor of Purchase Committee. Petitioner had admitted the same but held out that complainant had strongly recommended for giving the positions to the teacher. Complainant had, however, denied such allegation before the authority as recorded in impugned order. Mr. Bandopadhyay also referred to two parts of impugned order wherein contention of petitioner was held in his favour. He submits, this speaks of application of mind and absence of bias.;