IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

WPA 2205 of 2024

Dr. Ashis Chakraborty

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee

: Mr. Aniruddha Mitra

For the State : Mr. Supriya Chattopadhyay, ld. AGP

: Ms. Tapati Samanta

: Mr. Arindam Ghosh

For the University : Ms. Lina Majumder

Judgment on : 05.05.2026

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought for setting

aside of the order dated 10

th

November, 2023 issued by the Joint

Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal.

Also, directions have been sought to set aside the orders dated 12

th

October, 2023, 31

st

December, 2023 and 17

th

January, 2024.

2. The order dated 10

th

November, 2023 is for non-approval of the

order of transfer of the petitioner dated October 12, 2023, by the

Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, the reason

being the petitioner having been appointed under AICRP could

have been transferred to a substantive post of transfer in the

discipline of Plant Pathology under CoA, Burdwan, BCKV . The

P a g e | 2

other impugned order dated 12

th

October, 2023 is for making the

transfer order of petitioner to the College of Agriculture, Burdwan,

subject to the approval by the State Government. Vide the order

dated 31

st

October, 2023, the petitioner‘s service as Officer-in-

Charge of All India Co-ordinated Research Projects (AICRPs) on

potatoes was voluntary. The other impugned letter dated 17

th

January, 2024 is to direct the petitioner to hand over charge of

Officer-in-Charge, AICRP on potatoes.

3. Alternatively, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of necessary

direction upon the respondent authority to permit him to continue

as the Officer-in-Charge of AICRP of potatoes, treatin g his

retirement age as 65 years. The petitioner was appointed at

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV) with effect from the

date of 9

th

November, 1994. The petitioner says that, as per his

appointment letter, he was engaged as a whole-timer and terms

and conditions of his service is to be governed under the

provisions of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya Act, 1974

(BCKV Act, 1974).

4. The petitioner was appointed initially as a Lecturer (Research in

Plant Pathology). He was placed under the AICRP on tropical fruits

at Pedong, Darjeeling. From there, he was transferred in the same

capacity to the AICRP on Jute and Allied Fiber at Pundibari, Cooch

Behar, by an order dated 13

th

January, 1997. By an order dated

14

th

March, 2001, the petitioner was promoted to Lecturer (Senior

Scale). On 14

th

December, 2001, he was transferred to a

Government sanctioned post at the Registered Research Sub -

Station (RRSS) at Shekhampur. From there, he has again been

transferred in the AICRP on potatoes by an order dated 17

th

March, 2006.

5. The petitioner was promoted as the Reader (Research) with effect

from 10

th

November, 2004 (vide order dated 27

th

December, 2007)

P a g e | 3

and as a Professor (Stage – V) with effect from 10

th

November,

2012 (vide order dated 18

th

February, 2021). He has been declared

as a permanent staff of the University vide order dated 24

th

June,

2011 with effect from 10

th

November, 1997.

6. Furthermore, the petitioner‘s case is that, employment in a post in

the University and that in the AICRP is substantially on same

terms and conditions and bears no inherent difference. He has

stated in the writ petition that, pay scale/pay fixation of all AICRP

scientists/teachers is done as per matching order issued by the

Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal with

concurrence of the Department of Finance, Government of West

Bengal, in the same manner as for all other teachers at BCKV. The

project is governed by the Rules framed by the State Government.

Dearness allowance is paid as per Rules and norms of the State

Government. The petitioner has stated further that, Project

Scientists/staff in any AICRP are covered by the BCRB Rules

framed by the State Gov ernment applicable to the persons

employed in the University. He, similarly as the other

Scientists/teachers in AICRPs has contributed towards GPF at the

same rate as applicable to all the teachers and staff of the

University itself.

7. According to the petitioner, the teachers/Scientists of AICRPs are

also enjoying same benefit of Career Advancement Scheme as per

statute of the University, for promotion from the post of Assistant

Professor to Associate Professor and from Associate Professor to

Professor – in a similar manner like the other teachers who are

attached to the other Departments of the University. The

petitioner, as the teacher engaged with AICRP, has been granted to

revised pay fixation flowing from the benefits under Career

Advancement Scheme and promotion from time to time.

P a g e | 4

8. The petitioner has further put forth the fact that, in terms of order

dated 25

th

June, 2007, the retirement age of ICAR (that is, the

parent body) Scientists is 62 years. Though, initially, the Scientists

in West Bengal were to retire at 60 years of age as per Rules,

subsequently, vide an order dated 5

th

June, 2017, such age of

retirement was enhanced for the Scientists to 62 years. Further,

vide Government Order No. 2030 of 20

th

May, 2021, the retirement

age of teachers of a State aided Agricultural University was

enhanced from 62 to 65. As the Government Order has been duly

adopted by the BCKV by dint of a matching order dated 8

th

July,

2021. Consequently in 2021, the BCKV Act, 1974 has also been

amended.

9. The petitioner is aggrieved that the respondent authorities are not

agreeable to allow the enhanced age of superannuation in case of

the petitioner, he being a Scientist engaged in one of the several

AICRPs of the University, though according to the petitioner, the

AICRPs are permanent in nature and hardly differs as regards the

terms and conditions of service with that of the employees engaged

with the University. The petitioner has stressed sufficiently on the

fact that even during his employment, he himself has been

transferred from the project to the regular post in the University.

In that view of the matter and the other terms and conditions

being exactly similar to that of the regular teachers of the

University the petitioner has sought for the benefit in terms of

G.O. No. 2030 dated 20

th

May, 2021 by treating his retirement age

to be 65 years instead of 62 years. Therefore, he has expressed

grievance that, his prayer for transfer has been unauthorizedly

arbitrarily and illegally turned down by the respondent authority.

10. Alternatively, the petitioner has prayed for that, his

superannuation age be treated similarly and regular teachers of

University to be 65 years in spite of his being posted in a AICRP by

P a g e | 5

application of the Government Order No. 2030 dated 20

th

May,

2021.

11. By ding of an order dated 12

th

October, 2023, the petitioner was

transferred as the Professor at Department of Plant Pathology

under the College of Agriculture, Burdwan, subject to approval of

the State Government. According to him, no such approval of the

State Government would be required under the statute governing

his terms of employment to give effect to his transfer. He says that,

it is only a collateral transfer process and is at the disposal of the

University itself in terms of the statute and Rules. Later on 31

st

October, 2023, further order has been issued directing the

petitioner to continue to serve as the Officer-in-Charge, AICRP on

potatoes for 3 months with effect from 1

st

November, 2023 or till

the time of receiving approval from the State Government. On 17

th

January, 2024 an order has been issued by the Vice Chancellor of

BCKV, relieving the petitioner from the responsibility of the

Officer-in-Charge of AICRP on potatoes and informing further that

the transfer application of the petitioner dated 17

th

July, 2023 has

been disallowed by the Government by order dated 10

th

November,

2023. Hence, all these orders have been challenged by the

petitioner in the instant writ petition which he has sought to be set

aside.

12. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned advocate for the writ petitioner has

referred to section 2(16) of the BCKV Act, 1974. For benefit of the

discussion let the same be reproduced hereinbelow:

i. “2(16) "teacher" means a person appointed or recognised by the

University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and

guiding research or extension programmes and includes any other

person who may be declared by Statutes to be a teacher;”

P a g e | 6

13. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate has submitted that the statute

has specified three fold activities of a ‗teacher‘. Those are research,

teaching and extension. He says that the duty discharged by the

petitioner in the project of the university, duly falls within the four

corners of the definition as provided in the statute. Also, that

considering terms and conditions of his employment, which

categorically resemble with that of the approved teachers in the

university, no distinction can be made in his case while extending

benefit under the government notification, in favour of the said

petitioner.

14. Mr. Chatterjee has made two fold submissions. He has put forth

the petitioner‘s grievance as against letters issued by the

respondent authority dated 12th October 2023 and 17

th

January

2024, the principal contention where of is with regard to

requirement of permission/concurrence of the State, to finally give

effect to the transfer order passed by the University in response to

the application of the petitioner dated 17th July 2023, seeking

transfer from AICRP to a department at the University. In this

regard Mr. Chatterjee has placed sufficient reliance on the

statutory provision under section 33 of the BCKV Act 1974.

Specifically, on the basis of section 33A thereof, it has been

submitted that the respondent has misinterpreted and misled

itself to properly understand the said provision. He has elaborated

that in case of a sanctioned post, like the one to which the

petitioner has sought to be transferred to, neither the provision

under section 33A of the Act of 1974, should be considered to be

as a restricting provision nor the proviso thereof should be

considered as applicable.

15. With reference to the letter of the BCKV dated 14th December,

2001, it has been further submitted that the petitioner has duly

P a g e | 7

served in a substantive post under the university from 2001 to

2006, by virtue of the order of the authority, which clearly

transpires that there is no restriction under the law for a ‗Teacher‘,

discharging duty at AICRP to be, norm ally and collateral

transferred to the department in the university without requiring

any permission/concurrence from the S tate. Mr. Chatterjee has

also relied on the provisions under sections 11(s) and 33B of the

Act of 1974, in support of his argument.

“11. Powers and functions of the Executive Council - (1) The Executive

Council shall exercise the following powers and perform the

following functions, namely:-

****** ******* ******* *******

****** ******* ******* *******

(s) to sanction the increase of pay, allowances or any financial

benefit to any employee of the University with the prior approval of

the State Government.”

****** ******* ******* *******

“33B. Retirement of teachers - Every teacher of the University or any

college who is in receipt of pay in the revised scale shall retire from

service on attaining the age of sixty years”

16. His other contention is that in case of a sanctioned post, for which

approval of the State authority is already there to employ/post an

eligible person over there, at the time of the sanction of the post. It

is argued that therefore no further approval of the State is

necessary, for the petitioner, who is otherwise eligible for the said

post, to be placed on transfer to the said sanctioned post. It is

submitted that BCKV is an autonomous institution which is

authorised and empowered to take independent decisions with

respect to its administration, management, and functioning,

P a g e | 8

subject to availability of the sanctioned posts and/or regular

vacancies, in terms of the statutory provision.

17. Mr. Chatterjee has strongly relied on the ratio decided in the

judgments as mentioned below for the respective proposition

which he has argued in this case:-

i) State of Punjab And Another Vs. Sardari Lal and Others

reported at (2003) 10 SCC 253

- Merely because University is govt funded, Govt. not empowered

to interfere and/or control expenditure by University or service

conditions of its employees.

ii) Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd.

Vs. Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Banks

Employees Union and Another reported at (2004) 1 SCC 574

- Interpretation of ―Proviso‖ in a Statute.

iii) M/s Frick India Ltd Vs. Union of India And Others reported

at (1990) 1 SCC 400

- ―Heading‖ of a Statute – how to be interpreted.

iv) P.C. Modi Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya and

Another reported at 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1664

- Definition of ―Teacher‖ in Agricultural Universities.

v) Dr. Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Secretary, Department of

Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of

Uttarakhand, Dehradun & Others dated April 15, 2024 in

Writ Petition (S/B) No. 327 of 2023

- Personnel engaged in research/extension work in AICRP under

ICAR have to be treated as teachers.

P a g e | 9

18. The BCKV/University, has been represented by Ms. Lina

Majumder. It has been contended that the teaching and non -

teaching staff members for the various AICRPs have been recruited

through the selection process undertaken by following the

provisions of the BCKV Act, 1974. It has further been stated that

the members of the State government authorities took active part

in the executive council meeting of the university. That, in no such

meetings held by the executive council of the university where the

State government authorities have taken part, any question or

objection was ever raised with regard to the issue regarding

transfer of teachers/scientist and non-teaching staff members

from the AICRPs to the main establishment of the university,

whenever any such issue has come up for discussion and decision

in the meeting. As a result, those issues have always been allowed

in the meetings of the executive council of the university

unanimously by adopting appropriate resolutions. On all

subsequent occasions, whenever a new executive council has

taken charge, such decision has never been unsettled, but

confirmed by the subsequent council too. It is submitted that in

this way the issue of transfer of teachers/ scientists engaged at the

AICRPs under the said university to the main establishment of the

university has become a custom by itself and the same practice is

still in existence and being continued with.

19. The University has further contented that the recruitment to the

post of teachers and non-teaching staff of the university has not

been done for a fairly long period of time. In such circumstance,

the university says that it is in the best interest for the students of

the university that teachers and non-teaching staff members from

the AICRPs be transferred to the university, so that the regular

course of teaching may not be disrupted due to one of adequate

P a g e | 10

manpower. It has been submitted that this arrangement is too

fault beneficial for the university itself. Firstly, that the

experienced teachers having practical research and field exposure

would be available for the students to learn from, which is always

a beneficial and enriching aspect for a student. Secondly, that the

sanctioned vacant posts of the university can be filled by way of

appointing teachers on transfer from the AICRPs. By this way the

respondent/BCKV University has supported the petitioner‘s plea.

20. State is the principal objector in this case. The State is represented

by Mr. Supriya Chattopadhyay, learned AGP. It is submitted that,

initial appointment of the petitioner by the then Vice Chancellor of

BCKV on 9

th

November, 1994 as a Lecturer (Research in Plant

Pathology) was temporary in nature, in one of the projects of

AICRP at Pedong, Darjeeling, without any sanction from the State

Government. That, the said post was purely temporary and was

quo terminus with the life of the project itself. The petitioner was

declared as permanent employee of the said university with effect

from 10

th

November, 1997, by an order of the Vice Chancellor vide

memo dated 24

th

June, 2011 issued by the Registrar of the

University (Paragraph 5(iv) of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by

the respondent No. 1). According to the state respondent, the

petitioner‘s appointment was in violation of the provisions of the

BCKV Act, 1974; particularly that, as enumerated under Section

33A thereof. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate has submitted

that, as per Section 33A (iv) of the Act of 1974, the University

could not have appointed any person without prior sanction of the

State Government. It is also stated that, as per Section 11 (s) of

the said Act, the Executive Council of the University has power to

sanction increase in pay and allowance or any other financial

benefit to an employee of the University, with prior approval of the

State Government. According to the State respondent, neither

P a g e | 11

there was any prior sanction of the State Government before

appointment of the present petitioner nor there was any prior

approval as regards the financial stake undertaken by the

University by binding the writ petitioner.

21. The State has relied on two notifications dated 22

nd

June, 2016

and 16

th

December, 2019 respectively to buttress its argument

that prior permission is an unavoidable and mandatory

requirement of the University as regards appointment, promotion

and absorption of any teacher or non -teaching staff in the

University. That otherwise, in accordance with the said

notifications the financial responsibility is vested completely with

the University itself and the State bears no liability with regard to

that.

22. It is further submitted that, on the proposal of the University, the

State Government creates posts of teachers, officers and non -

teaching staff of the University, with concurrence of the Finance

Department of the State Government. That, as per Section 11 (c) of

the BCKV Act, 1974, the Executive Council of the University is

empowered to extend financial and promotional benefit to its

regular employees but only with prior approval of the State

Government. That, the Executive Council of the University has

power to take a decision with regard to AICRPs but such decision

of the Executive Council has no binding effect upon the State

Government. That, the State Government gives approval for

recruitment of regular teachers in the University as per Section

33A of the Act of 1974 as and when required. However, it is

submitted further that, with regard to recruitment in AICRPs, no

approval of State Government would be necessary.

23. The State has denied that, any matching order has ever been

issued by the State in case of recruitment of teachers/non -

teaching staff in AICRP. It is submitted that, the Government

P a g e | 12

issues matching order only for the regular employees of the

University, who are appointed in terms of Section 33A of the Act of

1974. It is further submitted that, with regard to recruitment in

AICRP, no approval of State Government is either required be

issued or has ever been issued till this date.

24. As regards, the petitioner‘s claim of applicability of DCRB Rules

with the Government in his case the said fact has been denied by

the State respondent. The State respondent submits that, only

those AICRP Scientists/staff are covered by the DCRB Rules of the

Government, whose appointments are approved by the State

Government. A Sche me namely, West Bengal State aided

Universities (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1999 (vide

notification No. 85-edn(u) dated 31

st

January, 2000, with effect

from 1

st

May, 1999) has been referred to. It is submitted that, the

said Scheme of 1999 covers all the teachers, officers and non-

teaching employees of numerous State -aided Universities

including BCKV, who have been appointed on whole time basis

against the posts and scales approved by the State Government

from time to time. The order dated 24

th

November 1998 which the

petitioner has relied on, has been disputed by the State

respondent, stating that the same has no binding effect upon the

State Government and the said order is misleading and false in

nature.

25. For the respondent, the following two judgments have been relied

on:-

i) Bikash Kumar Bhattacharyya Vs. The State of West Bengal

& Ors. dated March 15, 2023 in writ petition No. WPA 27655 of

2022,

ii) Pradip Kumar Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

dated March 07, 2024 in writ petition No. WPA 25958 of 2022 .

P a g e | 13

26. In the case of Pradip Kumar Das (supra) , this Court has

observed that, placement of an employee in a substantive post

tantamounts to portray him as regular employee in a fraudulent

manner. Similar proposition has been upheld in the other

judgment of Bikash Kumar Bhattacharyya (supra) as referred to

by the respondent authority.

27. It has been submitted that, the benefit of enhanced retirement age

pursuant to the Notification No. – 2030-End/AG/O/3E(u)-

01/2017 (Pt. I) dated 20

th

May, 2021 would be applicable only to

the full time regular teachers and other regular employees of the

said University, who are in receipt of State Government‘s notified

scale of pay and holding a substantive post in the said University.

The petitioner not having held a substantive and approved post

and not receiving any scale of pay of the Government, is not

entitled to be covered under provision of the said notification. The

State has submitted that, any decision taken by the Executive

Council of the BCKV is not binding upon the State in respect of

appointment, transfer, creation of any post, where prior approval

of the Government though was necessary but has not been

obtained, in terms of Section 33A of the BCKV Act, 1974. In this

way, according to the State respondent, the prayer of the petitioner

is not a legible one to be considered favourably that being in

violation of the statute. Hence, the State respondent has insisted

that the writ petition may be dismissed.

28. The All India Co-ordinated Research Projects (AICRPs) constitute a

centrally conceived and nationally coordinated framework of

agricultural research under the aegis of the Indian Council of

Agricultural Research (ICAR), implemented through State

Agricultural Universities such as Bidhan Chandra Krishi

Viswavidyalaya (BCKV), with the concurrence and financial

participation of the State. The relationship is thus tripartite in

P a g e | 14

effect: ICAR acts as the nodal and affiliating authority formulating

and sanctioning projects and providing 75% of the funding; BCKV

functions as the implementing academic and research institution;

and the State Government, though not always a formal signatory

to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), accords necessary

approval and bears the remaining 25% of the expendi ture,

particularly towards salaries and contingencies, thereby enabling

execution of the projects within the State framework.

29. The methodology by which the MoU is given effect reflects an

integrated administrative process. Upon ICAR sanctioning an

AICRP along with posts and financial outlay, BCKV, through its

Executive Council, considers and accepts the proposal, subject to

approval or no-objection from the State Government. The MoU

between ICAR and BCKV then governs the operational modalities,

including funding pattern, research objectives, and

implementation conditions. Posts created under AICRPs are

treated as posts of the University upon such approval, and

recruitment is undertaken not through a separate project-specific

mechanism but in accordance with the BCKV Act, 1974 and its

Statutes, following the same selection procedures as for regular

university appointments. Personnel so recruited may be deployed

in AICRPs to carry forward the research mandate, and the projects

are executed in alignment with both ICAR guidelines and the

statutory framework of the University, with financial flows routed

in accordance with the 75:25 sharing arrangement.

30. As regards the terms and conditions of service of teachers and

staff engaged in AICRPs, the combined reading shows that,

notwithstanding the project-based origin of funding, their service

conditions are substantially governed by the statutory regime of

BCKV and the rules of the State Government. They are treated as

regular ―teachers‖ or staff of the University, their appointments

P a g e | 15

being subject to the BCKV Act, Statutes, Ordinances, and

resolutions, and their pay, promotions (including Career

Advancement Scheme), retirement benefits, and other service

conditions being regulated in parity with other university

employees under State Government norms. While one perspective

emphasizes the temporary and project -linked nature of initial

appointments in the absence of State sanction, the consistent

practice reflected in the University and petitioner materials

indicates absorption into the regular institutional framework, with

benefits such as confirmation, pensionary coverage, and service

continuity being extended, subject to approval and funding

support from the State, thereby blurring the distinction between

project staff and regular university employees in practical terms.

31. At the heart of the present controversy lies a doctrinal tension

between formal statutory status and functional or equitable

assimilation. The petitioner‘s case rests substantially on the

latter—namely, that having been appointed through a procedure

akin to that prescribed under the Bidhan Chandra Krishi

Viswavidyalaya Act, 1974, having enjoyed pa rity in pay,

promotion, and service benefits, and having at one stage been

deployed within the mainstream establishment, he ought to be

treated as a ―teacher‖ of the University for all purposes. It is to be

tested if such contention of the writ petitioner is at all sustainable

or not.

32. First, the determinative factor is not the similarity of conditions of

service, but the source and character of appointment. Section 33A

of the Act of 1974 embodies a mandatory statutory control over

appointments to posts borne on the University establishment,

requiring prior approval of the State Government. This provision is

not merely procedural but goes to the root of the validity and

status of an appointment. The doctrinal principle applicable here

P a g e | 16

is that where a statute prescribes a particular mode of doing a

thing, it must be done in that manner or not at all [Taylor vs

Taylor reported in (1875) 1 Ch. D. 426]. Any appointment dehors

or independent of such statutory sanction cannot confer the legal

status attached to a post under the Act.

33. Insofar as the petitioner‘s contention that Section 33A, particularly

its proviso, in the BCKV Act, 1974, has been misinterpreted by the

State is concerned, this Court is unable to accept such

submission. The argument proceeds on the prem ise that once a

post stands sanctioned, any subsequent placement or transfer

thereto would not attract the rigour of prior approval under

Section 33A. This construction, however, overlooks the distinction

between sanction of a post and appointment to a post. Section 33A

of the Act operates at the stage of induction of a person into the

University establishment and mandates prior approval of the State

Government not merely for creation of posts but for appointments

thereto, thereby ensuring fiscal and administrative control. The

proviso cannot be read in isolation so as to dilute the substantive

requirement; rather, it must be construed as an exception of

limited application, not as a device to bypass the statutory

mandate. Accepting the petitioner‘s interpretation would, in effect,

render the main provision otiose and permit indirect absorption

into the regular establishment without compliance with statutory

safeguards. Such an interpretation would be contrary to the

settled principle that a proviso cannot be so construed as to defeat

the very object of the parent provision. Hence, the plea of

misinterpretation of Section 33A of the Act and its proviso is

devoid of merit.

34. In the present case, even if the petitioner‘s initial engagement

followed a selection process similar to that under the Act of 1974,

the material distinction remains that such appointment was to an

P a g e | 17

AICRP post—whose creation, continuation, and funding are

governed by a distinct institutional framework involving the Indian

Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The absence of prior State

sanction, as contemplated under Section 33A, disentitles the

petitioner from claiming the status of a regular teacher under the

University establishment.

35. Further, the doctrinal distinction between ―institutional control‖

and ―project affiliation‖ in the context of the instant writ petition is

unavoidable to be taken into judicial notice. The AICRP framework,

as evident from the records, constitutes a centrally coordinated

research mechanism, with a tripartite arrangement involving ICAR,

the University, and the State. While the University acts as an

implementing agency, the projects retain a degree of autonomy in

terms of their origin, funding pattern, and functional objectives.

Thus, AICRP cannot be equated with the core administrative

structure of BCKV. Applying the principle of separate legal identity

of funding and administrative streams, it follows that employees

engaged under AICRP cannot ipso facto be treated as employees of

the University in the strict statutory sense. The mere fact that the

University executes the project or that its Executive Council

participates in decision-making does not obliterate this distinction.

Functional integration does not imply legal absorption.

36. The petitioner‘s reliance on parity of benefits—such as pay scales,

Career Advancement Scheme, and Provident Fund contributions —

cannot override statutory limitations. It is a settled principle that

there can be no estoppel against statute. Even if, in practice, the

petitioner was extended benefits similar to regular teachers, such

administrative actions cannot confer a legal status contrary to the

statutory framework. The extension of benefits may at best reflect

administrative convenience or policy alignment, but does not alter

the underlying character of the post. The petitioner‘s argument

P a g e | 18

founded on past transfer to the main establishment or the

possibility of such transfer must also fail for the reasons as

discussed herein after. A transfer presupposes movement within

the same cadre or establishment. Where two posts belong to

distinct legal regimes, a movement from one to another partakes

the character, not of transfer but of fresh appointment or

absorption, which necessarily attracts the requirements of Section

33A of the BCKV Act, 1974. In the absence of compliance with

such statutory mandate, no vested right can accrue in favour of

the petitioner. Past practice or resolutions of the Executive Council

also cannot be held to prevail over statutory requirements. Any

administrative practice, however longstanding, has been and is

compelled to be ineffective, if it is inconsistent with the parent

statute. Therefore, even if transfers from AICRP to the University

establishment were previously effected without State approval,

such practice cannot create any enforceable right.

37. Finally, the definition of ―teacher‖ under Section 2(16), though

broad, cannot be read in isolation. It must be harmonised with

Section 33A and other provisions governing appointment and

service conditions. The principle of harmonious construction

mandates that a person can be recognised as a ―teacher‖ of the

University only if appointed in accordance with the statutory

scheme governing such posts. Functional similarity in duties—

research, teaching, or extension—does not suffice in the absence

of statutory compliance.

38. Accordingly the writ petitioner, notwithstanding his appointment

through a similar procedure and enjoyment of analogous service

benefits, cannot be treated as a ―teacher‖ under BCKV within the

meaning of the Act of 1974, in the absence of appointment to a

State-sanctioned post in compliance with Section 33A of the said

Act. It is found that the AICRP framework constitutes a distinct

P a g e | 19

and independent administrative and funding structure, and

engagement therein does not automatically confer status within

the University‘s regular establishment. Any transfer from AICRP to

the main establishment would amount to a fresh induction

requiring adherence to statutory requirements, including prior

approval of the State Government. Benefits extended in practice

cannot override statutory provisions, nor can past administrative

practices create enforceable rights contrary to law.

39. Hence, on the basis of the discussion as made above, the

petitioners grounds and prayer are found not to be sustainable

and the writ petition to be meritless.

40. The writ petition No. WPA 2205 of 2024 is dismissed.

41. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to

the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)