IN THE HIGH COURT At CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:- The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad And The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas M.A.T. 1555 of 2015 Ranajit Bhattacharya Vs. Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya & Ors. For the Appellant : Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Suravi Ghosh, Judgment on : 23.07.2026 Madhuresh Prasad, J.: 1. The appeal arises out of a judgment dated 24.04.2015 passed in W.P. 1549 (W) of 2004. 2. The appellant was the writ petitioner in the writ proceeding wherein he claimed benefit of Career Advancement Scheme for allowing him a higher scale of Rs.16,400/- -450- Rs.22,400/- with effect from February, 2002. The Selection Committee was considering the grant of career advancement benefits in terms of letter dated 03.03.2002 laying down the procedure for grant of such benefit. The petitioner’s claim for grant of the higher scale was not allowed by the Scrutiny Committee. This fact was revealed when the sealed cover wherein decision of the Selection Committee was kept, was opened in the writ Calcutta High Court MAT 1555 of 2015 dt.23.07.2026 2 proceeding. 3. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that there was no occasion for resorting to the sealed cover procedure. The learned Sr. Counsel has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109. He also submits that consideration of his claim for career advancement benefits was not as per the letter dated 03.03.2002 since the Committee considering the petitioner’s claim did not take into consideration his merit, which was superior to other four persons who were allowed the same benefit by the Selection Committee. 4. It is submitted that when the decision of the Scrutiny Committee was taken out of the sealed cover it was found that no reason had been assigned therein. 5. In support of his submission regarding findings of the Scrutiny Committee not being sustainable he relied upon a decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Jadab Chandra Mukhopadhyay Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. the judgment was passed in FMAT 3158 of 1995 and reported in (1998) 2 CHN 121. 6. We have considered the submission of the learned senior Advocate. Insofar as his submission regarding resorting to the sealed cover procedure being impermissible, we find no substance in such submission for the simple reason that the stage of sealed cover is over. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee as regards petitioner’s Calcutta High Court MAT 1555 of 2015 dt.23.07.2026 3 claim to benefit of Career Advancement was already opened in the writ proceeding. The Committee did not find the appellant suitable. Such facts not being in dispute we fail to understand as to how the petitioner/appellant can raise a grievance regarding resort to sealed cover procedure, when the sealed cover has already been opened and the petitioner found unsuitable for grant of the benefit in question. It is not petitioner’s case that he is suffering deprivation of any benefit of career advancement due to a fact that the result of Scrutiny Committee remains in a sealed cover. We, therefore, find no substance in reliance placed by the learned Senior Advocate on decision in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) as the same has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. Insofar as the allegation raised by the learned senior Advocate regarding the decision of the Scrutiny Committee being devoid of reasons, the same is required to be considered having regard to the nature of allegations levelled by the petitioner/appellant. It is the appellant’s case that he is superior to the other persons who were granted the benefit by the Scrutiny Committee. The learned Single Judge found no force in such self-serving assessment of the writ petitioner/appellant because firstly, the petitioner made allegations against four persons who were allowed the benefit of career advancement alleging that they were not eligible for some reasons or the other or that they were inferior in merit to the petitioner. The said four persons however, were not impleaded as party in the writ proceeding. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found no occasion to Calcutta High Court MAT 1555 of 2015 dt.23.07.2026 4 embark on such an enquiry to the detriment of the four persons who were granted the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme by the Scrutiny Committee, behind their back. The Hon’ble Single Judge thus, rightly held that onus lied upon the petitioner to substantiate such allegations with documents after impleading the parties likely to be effected. 8. The learned Single Judge also considered the fact that the respondent University denied such allegations. There is also no material to show that the Scrutiny Committee was acting with any malice against the petitioner, or with any inclination in favour of the said four persons. Under such circumstances the writ court found no occasion for interfering with the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. Insofar as the decision in the case of Jadab Chandra Mukhopadhyay (supra) is concerned. We find that the facts in the said case for consideration was completely different. The writ petitioner was a contender for a post of clerk-cum-typist at the school. The respondent no.7 was allowed to appear at the interview by the District Inspector of Schools without permission of Director of School Education. The respondent no.7 challenged the decision of the Director of Schools directing the District Inspector of Schools to withdraw the irregular order and not to issue such orders in future. The writ petition filed by respondent no.7 challenging the decision of the Director of Schools was considered by the writ court. The learned Lawyer appearing for both the parties suggested that the respondent no.7 be allowed to appear at the ensuing interview provided, he was otherwise found eligible for Calcutta High Court MAT 1555 of 2015 dt.23.07.2026 5 the said post. The order of the Directors of Schools however, was not set aside. The order was passed by the writ court despite the fact that no notice was served upon the school authorities, nor the Counsel for the state was having any instruction. The respondent no.7 thus, was allowed to appear at the interview. The respondent no.7 obtained total 18 marks in the process of selection whereas the appellant obtained 16 marks. 9. The Co-ordinate Bench found that the appellant therein passed higher secondary examination in the Second Division, whereas respondent no.7 could not pass the final examination. Respondent no.7 passed the higher secondary examination in a supplementary examination. Under these facts and circumstances the issues which arose for consideration was whether selection of non-teaching staff and such appointment can be challenged in the writ proceeding, whether additional DI of Schools is authorized to approve a panel and whether order of the High Court can be challenged in a collateral proceeding it is under such circumstances the Co-ordinate Bench held that in a selection process the court would not interfere as if it is sitting in appeal over decision of the selection committee. However, The Co- ordinate Bench held that the court would not shut its eyes despite availability of bare facts on records of that case and the court would verify whether there was fair consideration at the hands of the selection committee. If glaring injustices and non-fulfillment of the requirement of fair play is brought to the notice of the court the court may act so as to do complete justice to the parties. Calcutta High Court MAT 1555 of 2015 dt.23.07.2026 6 10. From a facts of the present case considered above we find that the appellant in the present case has made allegations which do not inspire any confidence and cannot be considered in absence of the persons against whom he has made allegation. Based on the facts taken note of above there was no occasion for the writ court to sit in appeal over a decision of the Scrutiny Committee. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee, in absence of any allegation of mala fide being made out and in absence of any procedural irregularity in the proceeding of the Scrutiny Committee was rightly not considered by the writ court in exercise of judicial review. 11. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Jadab Chandra Mukhopadhyay (supra) therefore, has no application to the facts of the present case. 12. The judgment of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. 13. We find no merit in the appeal. 14. The appeal is dismissed. 15. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) I agree. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)