PROFESSOR TAPAS CHAKRABORTY vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Court
Calcutta High Court

1

Form J(2)
Sl.No.7
Sc
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy



WPA 23785 OF 2026




Professor Tapas Chakraborty



Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jaydeep Kar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pijush Biswas, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Baran Das, Adv.
Ms. Sanjukta Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Sirsho Banerjee, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1/ State : Mr. Sauvik Nandy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumya Sankar Chini, Adv.
Ms. Ankana Sarkar, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1/University : Ms. Nandini Mitra, Adv.





Heard on : September 2, 2026
Judgment on : September 2, 2026


[ In Court ]


Aniruddha Roy, J. :
1. Upon urgency being shown and since regular determination has been
assigned before this Bench, the matter has been taken up for
consideration after being satisfied with the urgency involved therein.
2. Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, is taken on record.
WPA 23785 OF 2026
A.Roy, J.

2

3. At the threshold learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jaydeep Kar submits
that, the writ petitioner shall relinquish prayer (d) to the writ
petition along with all supportive averments made in the writ petition.
The petitioner shall not press for prayer (d) .
4. In view of the above, the writ petition henceforth shall continue
without prayer (d) .
Facts :

5. The petitioner has been appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology (hereinafter,
the University). The appointment was made in an exceptional
situation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercise of its power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The relevant orders of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard are July 8, 2024 passed in
Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023, Annexure-P3
at page 27 to the writ petition and the order dated July 29, 2024,
Annexure-P4 at page 51 to the writ petition.
6. The crux of the issue in this writ petition is whether the petitioner
would retire at the age of 65 years which would be arrived at on
September 8, 2026 by the petitioner or the petitioner as
Vice-Chancellor would retire after attaining the age of 70 years.
7. The relevant portion from the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
dated July 29, 2024, Annexure-P4 at page 51 (page 53) is quoted
below :
WPA 23785 OF 2026
A.Roy, J.

3

“


3. As regard to the three Universities, namely, Aliah
University, West Bengal University of Health Sciences
and West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery
Sciences, where the age of retirement of the Vice-
Chancellor is 65 years, we endorse the suggestion
given by the parties that let the age of retirement of
these Vice-chancellors be 65 years, as per the
Statutes. For the remaining Universities, the age of
retirement of the Vice-Chancellor shall be 70 years.


”

8. Referring to the above orders learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jaydeep
Kar appearing for the petitioner submits that, the expression
“ remaining Universities ” used in paragraph 3 of the order dated
July 29, 2024 includes the University in question where the
petitioner is the existing Vice-Chancellor .
9. Mr. Kar then refers to the Letter of Appointment dated August 12,
2026 , Annexure-P6 at page 65 to the writ petition and submits that,
the said Letter of Appointment mentions the date of retirement of the
petitioner would be at the age of 65 years and the petitioner shall
attain 65 years on September 8, 2026 , which is contrary to the
direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the instant writ
petition.
10. Mr. Sauvik Nandy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State
submits that, the retirement age of the petitioner must be governed by
the provisions laid down under the West Bengal University of
WPA 23785 OF 2026
A.Roy, J.

4

Technology Act, 2000 (for short the said 2000 Act ), which is 65
years. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nandy further submits that, the
direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was made in exercise of its
power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the same
cannot override the statutory provisions.
11. Mr. Sauvik Nandy, learned Senior Advocate for the State further
submits that, the said 2000 Act has not yet been amended and it
still provides for the age of retirement as 65 years and not 70 years or
otherwise. He submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also
directed to follow the Statute of 2019 as amended. He further
submits that, the petitioner had accepted the said Appointment Letter
dated August 12, 2026 and had acted thereupon by joining at the
post of Vice-Chancellor and, therefore, at this belated stage the
petitioner cannot challenge the age of retirement mentioned in the
said letter of appointment, which is otherwise in terms of the statute.
12. Ms. Nandini Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the University
submits that, the University has been working without a permanent
Vice-Chancellor for a substantial period of time, which in effect would
affect the administration of the University and the same would in
effect also affect the interests of the students at large. The Executive
Council has not yet been framed after its term having been expired in
2022 . As such, the recruitment is also at stake.
WPA 23785 OF 2026
A.Roy, J.

5

13. Mr. Pijush Biswas, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner
assisting Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate submits that, the
petitioner denies and disputes the submissions made on behalf of the
State.
Decision :
14. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on
perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that, under an
exceptional circumstance Hon’ble Supreme Court had exercised its
power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 3
from the order dated July 29, 2024 , as quoted above, has specifically
stated that, for the remaining Universities the age of retirement of
the Vice-Chancellors shall be 70 years .
15. Furthermore, paragraph 10 of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court dated July 8, 2024 (at page 35 ) of the writ petition, inter alia ,
records as under :
“

Hence, we resolve to constitute Search-cum-Selection
Committee(s) of the same composition so as to avoid
any confusion, irrespective of the fact that the relevant
provision of the Statute of the concerned University
may contain slight variations.


”

16. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that, if the State
insists upon the age of retirement of the petitioner to be 65 years and
WPA 23785 OF 2026
A.Roy, J.

6

not 70 years, it shall take clarification from the Hon’ble Supreme
Court but till then, no effect shall be given to the Letter of
Appointment dated August 12, 2026, insofar as the retirement age of
the petitioner being 65 years mentioned therein.
17. Since the affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in this
writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the
respondents.

18. With the above observations and directions this writ petition, WPA
23785 of 2026 stands disposed of , without any order as to costs.
19. Parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded
from the official website of this Court.
20. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the
parties on usual undertaking.


(Aniruddha Roy, J.)

WPA 23785 OF 2026
A.Roy, J.