Calcutta High Court Reinstates Allegedly Unqualified Law School Principal Ousted By Judge Based On Phone Conversation With Her

The Calcutta High Court has reinstated Dr Sunanda Goenka (“appellant”) as principal of Jogesh Chandra Chowdhury Law College, who was removed from her position by a single-bench at the behest of students of the college who had submitted that she was not qualified for her role under the UGC guidelines.

Appellants counsel submitted that she had been removed as principal by the single-judge on the basis of the phone-call from court enquiring about her qualifications on 5th October, when she had only been served with a copy of the writ petition at 8pm, the previous day.

In disagreeing with the procedure adopted by the single-judge, a division-bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay held:

It is a cardinal rule both of substantive and procedural law that no person can be condemned unheard. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object is to see that a person is not treated unfairly…only on the basis of a telephonic conversation, the order of removal ought not to have been passed.

These observations came in an appeal preferred by the appellant against the earlier orders of the single-judge, removing her from her post and barring her from entering the college premises or her office.

Over the telephone the learned Judge enquired as to whether she had qualified in National Eligibility Test (in short, NET) and State Level Eligibility Test (in short, SLET). In reply, the appellant submitted that she did not. Only on the basis of such conversation, the learned Judge arrived at a finding that the appellant does not have the requisite qualification for the post of teacher of a college recognized by UGC and [removed her], it was submitted by the appellants.

Appellant's counsel argued that she was not given a reasonable opportunity to appear and contradict the allegations levelled against her due to the actions of the judge in removing her on the basis of a telephonic conversation without giving her an opportunity to be heard in open court, thereby violating her natural justice rights.

Counsel for the writ petitioners argued that the appellant did not fulfil the basic requirements needed to qualify for initial appointment as lecturer in the said college.

It was argued that the petitioner had the right to be taught by eligible teachers and that fraud had been practised by the appellant, with inaction against her being politically motivated.

Counsel for the Commission argued that the appellant had joined the college in the year 1998 when it was a private college, and that when it gained permanent affiliation to the University of Calcutta in 2000, her appointment was regularised.

It was argued that neither NET nor SLET was required for appointment as principal.

Counsel for the State argued that earlier steps had been attempted to be taken by the relevant departments of the Government against the appellant, but the same was thwarted by the Governing Body of the College, of which the appellant was secretary.

It was also argued that in spite of notice to appear before an Enquiry Committee constituted by the Chief Secretary of the State, the appellant did not do so either.

Counsel for respondent no 26, another professor who was removed along with the principal, submitted that no notice had been served upon them and that she was not even given an opportunity to appear and contest the writ petition, which led to termination of her service.

In expressing disagreement with the single-judge’s actions, the Bench observed that if an adjournment had been granted to the appellant to make her case, it would not have caused a greater loss or prejudice to the writ petitioner, as compared to the prejudice suffered by the appellant due to the “hot haste” shown by the single-judge.

Accordingly, the order for removal of the principal was set aside, and she was reinstated to her post while entitling her to the consequential salary benefits accruing out of the same.

The single-judge was directed to decide the writ petition finally after granting liberty to all parties to file their affidavits.

Case: Dr. Sunanda Goenka (nee Bhattacharyya) Vs. Md. Danish Farooqui & Ors

Case No: MAT 2009 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order