Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent No.1 Sudip Charan Chakraborty filed an Original Application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
Though it was companytended by learned companynsel for respondent No.1 that the High Court was number justified in holding that there was numberchallenge to the appointment of appellant, we find that the High Court has categorically accepted the stand of the present appellant and the State Government to the effect that his appointment was number challenged by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.
On 4.1.2002, appellant was handed over the charge of the Head of the Department w.e.f.
A bare perusal of the High Courts order makes the position clear that there was numberdispute about number challenge to the appointment of the appellant as a Head of the Department as well as Professor.
The subject matter of companytroversy and the area of dispute were entirely different.
The High Court has categorically found that there was numberchallenge before the Tribunal.
Though, learned companynsel for respondent No.1 submitted that in fact challenge was made to the appointment of the present appellant who was respondent No.10, but in view of the categorical finding recorded by the Tribunal, the High Court companycluded that there was numbersuch challenge made before the Tribunal.
In any event, after the disposal of the matter by the Tribunal, the High Court was number justified in holding that the appellants appointment was illegal.
The Government Notification dated 26.12.2001 was quashed by the Tribunal in his O.A.No.56/2002.
Essentially, two challenges were made before the Tribunal by him.
The writ petition was filed by respondent No.1 on 17.5.2002 and was disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 30.10.2003.
In the meantime, an Original Application had been filed before the Tribunal by one Dr. Ajoy Kumar Gupta.
He prayed for appointment to the post of Professor and to set aside the appointment of Dr. Dilip Karmakar who was respondent No.9 before the Tribunal .
Arising out of SLP C No.
By its judgment and order dated 18.12.2001 the Tribunal partly allowed the application setting aside the appointment of aforesaid Dr Dilip Karmakar, but found that the prayer of the applicant i.e. respondent No.1 before it in this appeal for appointment to the post of Professor is number tenable.
6655 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The order of the Tribunal was questioned by the State of West Bengal before the High Court which was dismissed.
At this juncture, it is to be numbered that in Dr. Ajoy Kumar Guptas case the Tribunal quashed the numberification by its order dated 26.6.2002.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that the appellants appointment as the Head of the Department was number legal and further that the appellant was required to satisfy the authority that he possessed the requisite qualification to be entitled to companytinue in the post of Professor on a regular basis.
The grievance made in the interim application cannot be a substitute for a definite challenge to the appointment in the writ petition.
But the High Court went on to examine the companyrectness of the appointment of the present appellant who was respondent No.10 before it as the Head of the Department of Urology and his appointment as a Professor.
4.1.2002.
