Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition challenging the termination of their service as principal on probation by the Chairman of the Board of Governors of RCCIIT Institute of Information Technology (RCCIIT), a single-judge bench comprising of Subhendu Samanta,* J., held that the writ petition is not maintainable. Following the principles of judicial discipline and uniformity, the Court decided to refer the issue of maintainability to the Chief Justice for consideration by a Larger Bench.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the termination of their service as principal on probation by the Chairman of the Board of Governors of RCCIIT Institute of Information Technology (RCCIIT) vide order dated 01-06-2020. The termination decision was made following a meeting of the Board of Governors on 29-05-2020. During the final hearing, respondents 7 and 8 raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that RCCIIT is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner, cited Gautam Pal v. State of W.B., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 8176 and RCCIIT Staff Assn. v. State of W.B., WPA 547 of 2020, dated 16-08-2023 and contended that the maintainability issue has already been decided by two Co-ordinate Benches of this Court where it was held that RCCIIT is amenable to writ jurisdiction due to the pervasive control of the Department of Higher Education, Government of West Bengal. It was argued the functional and administrative control of the State over RCCIIT is evident from the formation of the society and its administration. The petitioner cited G.L. Batra v. State of Haryana, (2014) 13 SCC 759, and argued that these decisions should be binding on all Co-ordinate Benches of the Court.
The RCCIIT argued that RCCIIT is not amenable to writ jurisdiction as RCCIIT is a self-financed engineering college established under an autonomous society and the college’s affairs are managed by a Governing Body termed “Board of Governors,” whose members are selected by the Board of Management of the Society and are not nominated by the government of West Bengal. It was contended that RCCIIT does not receive recurring grants from the State Government and does not operate under deep control from the government. It was further argued that RCCIIT does not qualify as a government-aided institution under the definition provided by the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).
Court’s Decision
The Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed relevant decisions, including those of coordinate benches and the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the issue of maintainability had been previously decided by two Co-ordinate Benches, which held that RCCIIT is amenable to writ jurisdiction due to the control exerted by the Department of Higher Education, Government of West Bengal. The Court observed that while previous Co-ordinate Benches had decided the issue of maintainability in favor of the petitioner, they had not considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court in St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498, regarding the maintainability of writ petitions against private bodies discharging public functions. Referring to the principles laid down in the St. Mary’s case (Supra), the Court held that while RCCIIT performs public duties by imparting education, the issue at hand primarily concerns a service contract and does not involve a significant public law element. Additionally, the Court found a conflict between its decision and the decisions of coordinate benches on the same issue.
Despite previous decisions, the Court found that the issue of maintainability needed further consideration, especially given the Supreme Court’s precedent. The Court held that to maintain judicial discipline and ensure uniformity in decisions, the matter should be referred to a larger bench for resolution. Therefore, the Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable and ordered the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for referral to a larger bench. The Court directed the parties to act upon the judgment and receive certified copies accordingly.
[Arup Kumar Bhaumik v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1554, order dated 16-02-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Subhendu Samanta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Saptansu Basu, Ms. Saheli Sen, Mr. Rajib Mallik, Ms. Mrinalini Majumdar, Mr. A. Sarkar, Ms. Shreyasi Maity, Counsel for the Respondent 8
Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri, Mr. N. Roy, Counsel for the State
