Allowed

Srijib Kumar Patra v. Union of India & Ors.

Calcutta HC23 Jun 2022FMA/1657/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court corrected an inadvertent reference in an impugned judgment regarding UGC Regulation 2000, directing State Authorities to act in accordance with the interpretation laid down in Partha Sarathi Dutta vs. Union of India. The present appeal was allowed with this modification.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment modified to correct the reference; State authorities directed to act per Partha Sarathi Dutta order within eight weeks.

Srijib Kumar Patra Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

9 23.6.2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FMA 1657 of 2019

¶4

Srijib Kumar Patra Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Soumya Mazumdar Mr. Atarup Banerjee Mr. Subhas Jana … For the Appellant. Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee Ms. Tuli Sinha …. For the State Respondent. Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta … For the Respondent nos. 2 to 4./U.G.C.

¶6

The impugned judgement and order is dated 16^th May, 2016.

¶7

The material terms of this judgement and order are as follows:

¶8

“In such circumstances, the State authorities are directed to act in terms of the interpretation of the relevant Clauses and U.G.C. Regulation 2000 as given in the judgement and order dated March 1, 2016passed in Dr. Sachindra Nath Pal(supra) so far as the petitioner is concerned

¶9

W.P. 8381(W) of 2016 is disposed of without any order as to costs”

¶10

S.D.

¶11

Mr. Atarup Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellant/petitioner submits that the State Authorities should have been directed to act in terms of the University Grants’ Commission Regulation, 2000 as interpreted by this court in its order dated 22^nd February, 2016 in W.P. 27262(W) of 2014(Partha Sarathi Dutta Vs.

¶12

¶13

Union of India & Ors.).

¶14

From the reasons given in the impugned judgement and from the tenor thereof, we think that the learned judge intended to refer to and cite the said judgement dated 22^nd February, 2016 in the Partha Sarathi Dutta Vs. Union of India & Ors. matter but by inadvertence the reference was wrongly recorded as Dr. Sachindra Nath Pal. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. and decided on 1^st March, 2016.

¶15

In those circumstances, we dispose of this appeal by directing the State Authorities to act in terms of the relevant Clauses of the University Grants’ Commission Regulation 2000 as interpreted by this court in the case of Partha Sarathi Dutta Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 22^nd February, 2016.

¶16

The impugned judgement and order is modified to the above effect.

¶17

This appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶18

We direct the State respondents to take the necessary decision in terms of this order within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶19

( I.P. Mukerji, J.)

¶20

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)

¶21

Srijib Kumar Patra v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srijib Kumar Patra v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamala Mondal & Ors. Vs Krishna Roy & Anr.

Anisur Ali @ Ansarul and Ors. Vs Mokbul Hossain and Ors.

Ram Prasad Maji & Ors. Vs the State of W.B.

Kali Kumar Das Vs Pradip Kumar Mukherjee

Partha Sarathi Mondal Vs Nirmal Mridha & Ors.

Durgapur Subdivision Minibus Operators Association & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.