Click the Play button to listen to article

The Calcutta High Court has held that the State cannot create an alternative eligibility route for appointing a college principal on the basis of eminence as a professional artist if it is inconsistent with the binding University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2010.

Setting aside the appointment of Chhatrapati Dutta as Principal of the Government College of Art and Craft, Kolkata, Justice Rai Chattopadhyay issued a writ of quo warranto declaring that Dutta had no lawful authority to continue in the post.

The Court held that the State's recruitment framework could not permit an appointment in derogation of mandatory UGC qualifications. It also set aside the Public Service Commission's recommendation and the consequential appointment notification dated April 24, 2017, insofar as they concerned Dutta.

“Neither the State Government nor the Public Service Commission possesses an unfettered discretion to appoint a person who does not satisfy the mandatory legal qualifications,” the Court observed.

The judgment came on a writ petition filed by Amalaksha Jana and others, challenging Dutta's appointment and seeking a fresh selection process. The Court rejected the respondents' preliminary objections that the petitioners lacked locus standi because they had not participated in the recruitment process and that the matter should have been taken before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.

State's Alternative Eligibility Route For Eminent Artists Challenged

The Public Service Commission had issued Advertisement No. 16/2015 for recruitment to the post of Principal of the Government College of Art and Craft, pursuant to a State notification dated October 10, 2014.

The advertisement prescribed two alternative eligibility routes. Under the first, candidates were required to possess a Master's degree with the prescribed marks, a Ph.D. in the concerned or allied discipline, 15 years of teaching, research or administrative experience, the stipulated Academic Performance Indicator (API) score and the requisite language proficiency.

The second route permitted a traditional or professional artist of great eminence with highly commendable professional achievements to be considered on the basis of 12 years of outstanding achievements in the field, significant contributions to the specialisation, the ability to guide research and specified professional or academic accomplishments.

The petitioners contended that the alternative route was not contemplated under the UGC Regulations, 2010, and could not be used to dispense with mandatory qualifications prescribed under the national regulatory framework.

Accepting the challenge, the Court held that while the State could frame recruitment rules and regulate the selection process, it could not dilute binding national standards governing qualifications for appointments in higher education.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat*, which recognised that a public appointment could be challenged through a writ of quo warranto where the appointee failed to satisfy eligibility criteria prescribed by law or the appointment violated applicable statutory provisions.

“The State cannot claim an unrestricted power to dilute a mandatory qualification merely because the institution is maintained by the State or the post forms part of a State service,” the Court observed.

It further held that if the alternative eligibility route for eminent artists was inconsistent with the applicable UGC Regulations, the relevant provisions of the State notification and recruitment advertisement could not sustain an appointment contrary to the governing law.

The petitioners had alleged that Dutta did not possess the requisite Ph.D. qualification, 15 years of prescribed experience or the required API score. They also questioned whether he satisfied the conditions for appointment under the alternative category of an eminent professional artist.

The Court noted that the initial interview list, published for an interview scheduled on August 17, 2016, contained 14 candidates. Dutta's name appeared at serial number 11 with an asterisk, indicating that his candidature was provisional and subject to submission of satisfactory documents establishing experience in the field of specialisation by August 11, 2016.

A subsequent interview list contained 12 candidates and did not carry the earlier asterisks. However, the material before the Court did not disclose whether Dutta had submitted the required documents within the stipulated period or how the discrepancy between the two lists had been resolved.

The Court observed that the publication of a subsequent list without an asterisk could not, by itself, establish that the required documents had been submitted and verified.

It also held that the Public Service Commission's involvement in the selection process did not immunise the appointment from judicial scrutiny, as verification of minimum eligibility was a legal obligation.

“Eligibility precedes comparative selection,” the Court observed, adding that the refusal of a preferred candidate to accept an appointment could justify consideration of another eligible candidate but could not confer eligibility upon someone who failed to satisfy mandatory conditions.

The Court clarified that it could not substitute its own assessment of artistic merit for that of an expert selection committee. However, it could examine whether the committee had applied the correct legal criteria, obtained the prescribed documents and ensured that the candidate possessed the minimum qualifications required for appointment.

The petitioners had also relied on information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, indicating that Dutta, who joined Rabindra Bharati University as a lecturer on March 30, 1995, had been dismissed from service with effect from November 30, 2006, following a recommendation of the university's Executive Council.

The information referred to a fact-finding committee constituted in connection with alleged misconduct. Dutta, however, contended that his departure from the university was effectively a resignation for personal reasons.

The Court held that the conflicting claims had to be examined against the actual service records, the relevant resolution and the operative order governing his earlier employment.

It clarified that the present proceedings were not a disciplinary inquiry into his past service and that unproved allegations of misconduct could not independently determine the legality of his appointment. The decisive question remained whether Dutta possessed the qualifications and legal eligibility required for the post.

The Court rejected the respondents' contention that the petitioners lacked locus standi because they had not participated in the selection process.

It held that a petition seeking quo warranto was distinct from an ordinary service dispute in which an unsuccessful candidate seeks appointment or other individual service benefits. The object of the writ was to examine whether a person was lawfully occupying a public office.

The Court observed that a petitioner need not establish personal legal injury or demonstrate that they would themselves have been entitled to the post. Any person could bring an alleged unlawful occupation of public office to the Court's notice, provided the challenge was bona fide, raised a legally cognisable issue and was supported by sufficient material.

The Court also rejected the objection that the petitioners were required to approach the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It clarified that its conclusion was confined to the nature of the present quo warranto challenge and did not mean that every recruitment dispute involving a State post could bypass the Tribunal.

Holding that the alternative eligibility route could not operate in derogation of mandatory UGC qualifications, the Court declared the relevant provisions of the State notification and recruitment advertisement inoperative to that extent.

It also set aside the Public Service Commission's recommendation and the consequential appointment notification insofar as they concerned Dutta, and directed the State Government and the competent appointing authority to take immediate steps to ensure that he ceased discharging the functions of Principal under the impugned appointment.

The authorities were further directed to make interim administrative arrangements until a duly eligible person was selected and appointed.

Case: Amalaksha Jana & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Tags: