District: Burdwan

In the High Court at Calcutta

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

M.A.T. No. of 2024

(Arising out of W.P.A. No. 3276 of

2018)

In the matter of:

1. Coal India Ltd., service

through Managing the

Chairman cum Managing

Director, Coal Bhawan,

Premises No.4, MAR, Plot

No.AF-III, Action Area 1A, New

Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata-

700156.

2. M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited, having its office at

13, R.N. Mukherjee Road,

Kolkata- 700001 as well as

Office at Sanctoria, P.O.

Dishergarh, District: Burdwan,

Pin – 713333.

3. The Managing Office at

Chairman cum Director

(E.C.L.), Sanctoria, P.O.

Dishergarh, District Paschim

Burdwan, Pin-713333.

4. The Director (Personnel)

(E.C.L.), Office at Sanctoria,

P.O. Dishergarh, District

Paschim Burdwan, Pin-

713333.

5. The General Manager (Pers)

Recruitment/M.P. (E.C.L.),

Office at Sanctoria, P.O.

Dishergarh, District Paschim

Burdwan, Pin- 713333.

6. The General Manager (P&IR)

(ECL), Office at Sanctoria, P.O.

Dishergarh, District - Paschim

Burdwan, Pin-713333.

7. The Chief Manager (Pers/

Recruitment), ECL, Office at

Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh,

District Paschim Burdwan, Pin-

713333.

8. The Senior Manager (P) Estb.

ECL, Office at Sanctoria, Ρ.Ο.

Dishergarh, District Paschim

Burdwan, Pin-713333.

9. The Chief of Medical Services,

E.C.L., Central Hospital Kalla,

District Paschim Burdwan, P.S.

Asansol (North), Pin-713340.

10. The Chief Medical Officer,

E.C.L., Central Hospital Kalla,

District Paschim Burdwan, P.S.

Asansol (North), Pin-713340.

11. The Deputy Chief Medical

Officer (Admn), E.C.L., Central

Hospital Kalla, District

Paschim Burdwan, P.S. Asansol

(North), Pincode – 713340.

… Appellants

-Versus-

1. Goutam Kumar Layek @

Goutam Layek, son of Sudhir

Kumar Layek, residing at 1,

Mohishila Colony (Sabuj Pally),

District – Paschim Burdwan,

Asansol - 713302.

2. Periyar University, service

through the Registrar, Tamil

Nadu, Salem-636011, India.

… Respondents

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
 5

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu

Chowdhary in W.P.A. 3276 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the said

writ petition”) preferred by Goutam Kumar Layek @ Goutam Layek

(hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”), the appellants abovenamed

beg to prefer this instant appeal before Your Lordships on the following

grounds amongst others:

GROUNDS

I. FOR THAT the impugned judgement dated 19.03.2024 passed by

the Hon’ble Single Bench below is vitiated by erroneous findings

of fact and law.

II. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that the petitioner in the said writ petitioner was

regularised as a Ward Boy and later on admittedly transferred to

Pathological Department in his existing post.

III. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that the petitioner, apart from his failure to fulfill

requisite conditions for the position of a Laboratory Technician

(Pathological) in T&S Grade C, the petitioner also did not have

any experience for such post in question i.e. Laboratory

Technician.

IV. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench has failed to appreciate

that in such premises as stated hereinabove under point no. II

and III, the petitioner does not and cannot hold any right or

eligibility to be promoted to the post of Laboratory Technician

(Pathological) in T&S Grade C.

V. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that the qualification for the Technician (Pathological)

post is Diploma in respective technology from a recognised

institution or a 3-year experience from recognised institute or

government hospital or in Grade D but the petitioner does not

have the requisite qualification for the post Technician

(Pathological).

VI. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that as per judgment and order dated 20.12.2016

passed by the Hon’ble Justice Arindam Sinha in W.P.A. being No.

925 of 2014, the respondents in such writ petition had submitted

that the instant respondent no. 2 herein is not a recognised

university.

VII. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that as per judgment and order dated 20.12.2016

passed by the Hon’ble Justice Arindam Sinha in W.P.A. being No.

925 of 2014 directed the appropriate authority of the appellant

no. 2 herein to ‘consider’ the matter and take a decision

accordingly.

VIII. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that, in compliance of such judgment dated

20.12.2016, after considering the matter from every possible

perspective inclusive of the submissions made by the petitioner

at the stage of the hearing, the appellants herein rejected the

claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order dated

19.01.2017.
 8

IX. FOR THAT the Hon’ble Single Bench below has erred in law and

in facts by failing to consider that the case of the petitioner is

not even admissible from the perspective of the documentary

evidences available on record.

X. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench has failed to appreciate

that the course offered by the Periyar University is not approved

by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) while

such post requires a specialised educational qualification by

means of Diploma in respective technology from a recognised

university.

XI. FOR THAT such certificate of diploma awarded to the petitioner

does not bear any significance or bring any value to the

appellants herein.

XII. FOR THAT the Hon’ble Single Bench below has erred in law and

in facts by failing to appreciate that the Periyar University is not

even recognised by AICTE considering the facts that the post for

which the petitioner had applied requires specialisation in

respective technologies and for that, the recognised institute

must hold recognition inter alia by way of affiliation from AICTE.

XIII. FOR THAT the Hon’ble Single Bench below has erred in law and

in facts by failing to appreciate that the petitioner had obtained

diploma in technical education through distance mode, for which

the petitioner was not and could not be entitled to the higher

post i.e. Laboratory Technician that the petitioner had applied

for.

XIV. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that, by virtue of the office order being no.

ECL/CMA/C-6/02M/2011/79N and dated 27.04.2011, while the

petitioner had obtained permission for admission in the

technical course of Diploma at Periyar University, the

respondents themselves were not aware at all inter alia whether

the certificate had been issued by the Periyar University or

whether the course was in distance mode or whether such

university was recognized by the AICTE or whether such

particular course was recognised by the UGC.

XV. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that the certificate admittedly produced by the

petitioner is of Radio Imagine Technology programme while the

petitioner had applied for Laboratory Technician role in which

subject-matter the petitioner did not have any expertise or

requisite experience.

XVI. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has completely

failed to appreciate that the petitioner had suppressed material

fact that he had already disclosed in W.P.A. 921 of 2014 that he

is eligible for the post of Radiographer for which he had been

called for the examination and interview, though he had

appeared ineligible lateron.

XVII. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has completely

failed to appreciate that his applications for the open positions

or his purported eligibility or expertise or experience for such

openings are not supported by law or contradicting documents

available on record.

XVIII. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has completely

failed to appreciate that the stand of the petitioner concerning

his eligibility or expertise or experience is clearly false and

fabricated.

XIX. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that such Diploma issued to the petitioner in a remote

technical course conducted by the Periyar University does not

provide any scope to confer that the petitioner has requisite

Diploma for working either as a Laboratory Technician

(Pathological) or Radiographer or X-Ray Technician inasmuch as

the Petitioner is working as a Ward Boy in Grade ‘H’.

XX. FOR THAT the Hon’ble Single Bench below has erred in law and

in facts by failing to appreciate that it is normal practice of the

appellant authorities to call candidates for examination and

interview for any opening posts, however the final lists of

qualified candidates are published based upon their fulfilment

of requisite terms and conditions.

XXI. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that the petitioner appeared before the Hon’ble

Courts with dirty hands and his averments are completely

ambiguous.

XXII. FOR THAT the Hon’ble Single Bench below has erred in law and

in facts by failing to appreciate that, for such reasons as stated

hereinabove, the appropriate appellant authority by virtue of its

order dated 19th January, 2017 had directed that the Chief

Manager (Personnel)/Recruitment, ECL, H.Q, would write to the

Periyar University asking the University to clarify the followings:

1. Whether the certificate has been issued by them;

2. Whether the particular course was recognized by UCG in

Distance Mode;

3. Whether the said course on distance mode had the

recognition of AICTE;

4. Whether the particular study center was recognized by

the Periyar University for the distance mode.

XXIII. FOR THAT the Hon’ble Single Bench below has erred in law and

in facts by failing to appreciate that the University had failed to

give clear and specific reply to the appellant authorities herein

and as such, no relief could be afforded to the petitioner in the

said writ petition.

XXIV. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that the instant respondent no. 2 had already closed

all its study centers in other states and countries.

XXV. FOR THAT the Hon’ble Single Bench below has erred in law and

in facts by failing to appreciate that the University had started a

course through distance education for granting diploma in

Medical Laboratory Technology, however, such course was

contrary to the UGC guidelines.

XXVI. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that Periyar University had been offering programs

through distance learning mode by flouting the norms,

guidelines and directives issued by the UGC and therefore such

course that was not extended beyond 2014-15 academic year was

not affiliated or supported by the UGC.

XXVII. FOR THAT the petitioner had completely failed to submit or

prove that he had acquired the qualification in question through

regular course by physical mode, that is endorsed by UGC.

XXVIII. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that such a course that is even not affiliated by the

UGC is not and cannot be recognised by the appellant authorities

inasmuch as such course that is offered by the Periyer University

in gross violation of the UGC regulations and such a violative

course issued by the university casts doubt on the legitimacy of

the diplomas acquired through distance learning before the

academic year 2014-2015.

XXIX. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate the serious question as to how much valid such

qualifications are in the eye of the law or to the society inclusive

of the employers of those university students who had been

offered or issued such qualifications prior to the academic year

2014-15.

XXX. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that such recognition to the disputed qualification of

the petitioner may interrupt integrity of the educational system

and the interests of the public.

XXXI. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that distance education, particularly in technical

disciplines like Medical Laboratory Technology or Radio Imaging

Technology, may not adequately meet the standards expected

from regular modes.

XXXII. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that the recognition of the distance learning in a

disputed technical course for instance, Medical Laboratory

Technology or Radio Imaging Technology could invite potential

risks and public harm that could significantly impact public

health and safety.

XXXIII. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has failed to

appreciate that the query raised by the appellant authorities

were not properly and very clearly redressed by the petitioner,

therefore the petitioner’s case was not proceeded with anymore.

XXXIV. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has erroneously

found that Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble High Court at

Calcutta had returned a finding that the petitioner possesses

requisite qualification, therefore it was no longer open to the

respondents to question the same.

XXXV. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has erroneously

found that since the recognition of Periyar University was not

extended beyond the academic year of 2014-15, the petitioner

had acquired his qualification in the year 2012.

XXXVI. FOR THAT the impugned judgment suffers gross perversity

inasmuch as the Hon’ble Single Bench below has erroneously

found that the appellant authorities cannot be permitted to deny

the right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion simply

because the Periyar University did not properly answer to the

queries made by the appellant authorities.

XXXVII. FOR THAT such judgment dated 19.03.2024 passed by the

Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhary in the said writ petition

suffers gross perversity inasmuch as the same recoded

erroneous findings.

XXXVIII. FOR THAT such judgment dated 19.03.2024 is liable to be stayed

and/or set aside.

I certify that the above-

mentioned ground are good

grounds of appeal:

Advocate

List of enclosures:-

1. Memorandum of Appeal 1
2. Judgment. 1
3. Hon’ble Second Judge’s copy. 1
4. Vakalatnama 1
TOTAL : 4