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

W.P.S.T. 121 of 2025

Smt. Debasree Polley @ Koley & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

With

W.P.S.T. 122 of 2025

Biplab Ketan Ghatak & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioners :Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee,

Ms. Satabdi Das,

Mr. Mainak Singha Barua,

For the State : Mr. D. N. Ray, Ld. G.P.,

Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharya, Ld. AGP,

Ms. Marry Datta,

For the P.S.C.W.B. : Ms. Shraboni Sarkar,

Ms. Umme habiba Khatun,

Heard on : 04.08.2026

Judgment on : 15.10.2026

Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. The writ petitioners were the applicants before the West Bengal

Administrative Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”). They filed the original

application being OA No.490 of 2021, seeking relief in the form of

2

direction upon the respondent authorities to regularize their

engagement on the post of lecturer in the polytechnic.

2. The Tribunal found that the applicants were serving on the post of

lecturer on ad hoc basis since 2009. They put in a major part of their

life in this ad hoc service. The Tribunal also recorded that it is

undesirable that the post of lecturers in Government Polytechnic

Colleges continues to be occupied on ad hoc basis. The Tribunal thus

directed:

“Therefore, a direction is given to the Respondent No. 2,

the, Secretary now re-designated, as the. Additional

Chief Secretary, Department of Technical Education and

Training to initiate concrete steps in filling the vacant

posts of lecturers either through absorption of these

contractual lecturers or through fresh, recruitment

process. Such steps shall be initiated within three (03)

months from the date of communication of this order.

With this direction, this application is disposed of”.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, in as much as it did not

allow the petitioner’s claim for regularization, the writ petition was

filed, for setting aside the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the

Tribunal in the original application. The writ petitioners also sought

direction upon the respondents to absorb them on the posts on which

they are serving as permanent employees. They sought a direction

restraining the respondent no.2 (The Secretary) Department of

Technical Education Training and Skill Development from initiating

any fresh selection process.

3

4. The brief factual background, in the two writ petitions arise from one

advertisement published in the newspaper, whereby and whereunder

desirous candidates were invited to participate in the walk-in

interview to be conducted for engagement of lecturers in government

polytechnics, (on purely contract basis).

W.P.S.T 121 of 2025

5. The advertisement was dated 08.11.2007. The successful candidates

were to be engaged on a consolidated remuneration, initially for six

months. The writ petitioners applied in response to the advertisement.

They emerged successful in the walk-in interview and were initially

engaged in between 2008-2009, for a period of six months. Thereafter,

they were successively re-engagement on contractual basis. As such

they rendered service as contractual lecturers in the government

polytechnics till December, 2021.

6. The writ petitioners thus, moved the secretary of the department

through their learned Advocate by way of a representation requesting

the Secretary to regularize their service. The representation in this

regard was submitted on 25.02.2021.

7. The Government, however, considered revision of service conditions,

including revision of remuneration of the contractual lecturers in

government polytechnics. On careful consideration of the matter the

government in the Finance Department decided to enhance the

remuneration of the ad-hoc lecturers, including the present

petitioners. The government thus, issued an order dated 26.02.2021

4

which allowed certain other benefits also to the ad-hoc lecturers,

including:

(i) Continuation of their contractual engagement up to

the age of 60 years.

(ii)Grant of terminal benefit Rs.3 lakh on attainment of

age of 60 years,

(iii) Annual enhancement of remuneration at the rate of

3 per cent, subject to assessment of their performance.

8. The enhancement of remuneration was to be granted to the

petitioners having regard to a fact whether they were having

qualifications at par with AICTE norms, or not. Grant of such benefit

was contemplated with effect from 01.03.2021. The Government,

however, did not allow the petitioner’s claim for absorption/

regularization.

9. The petitioners under such circumstances moved the Tribunal by

filing OA 490 of 2021. After the exchange of pleadings before the

Tribunal and considering the stand of the parties, the same was

disposed of by the order which is impugned in the present writ

proceeding.

W.P.S.T 122 of 2025

10. Insofar as the second writ petition arising out of OA No.495 of 2021

is concerned, we found that there are minor distinctions in the facts.

The advertisement inviting applications for contractual engagement is

5

dated 27.05.2008 instead of 08.11.2007. The joining of the writ

petitioners was between the years 2008-2009.

11. However, the petitioners in this case also continued till February,

2021. They also filed their OA on the same date as the writ petitioners

in the first writ petition. The order dated 26.02.2021 issued by the

government giving enhanced remuneration and other benefits is also

common to the writ petitioner in both the cases.

12. Therefore, the facts and circumstances falling for consideration in

both the cases are substantially one and the same, having

insignificant distinction. The writ petitions were therefore, considered

together. The learned Advocate representing the writ petitioners and

respondents have also made submissions common to both the writ

petitions, without reference to the insignificant distinction.

13. The common issue therefore arising for consideration is whether the

writ petitioners had an enforceable claim for issuance of directions by

the Tribunal to regularize their service.

14. The learned Senior Advocate for the applicant/writ petitioner

submitted that the petitioner’s initial engagement on contract basis

was preceded by an advertisement in the newspaper. The

advertisement specified qualifications for the engagement in question

which were at par with the qualification specified for appointment of

regular lecturer. The engagement was done against vacant sanctioned

posts. He further submitted that the authorities renewed the contract

successively for more than 10 years. With a view to deprive the

6

petitioners an opportunity to claim benefits attached to continuity of

contractual engagement, the authorities deliberately renewed the

successive contracts after gap of 3 to 4 days. Therefore, the

petitioners are in a position to claim that they have served on

contractual basis as lecturers against sanctioned posts for a period of

more than 10 years. Since they were qualified for regular appointment

to the post of lecturer, the petitioners were entitled to

regularization/absorption of their service.

15. The learned Senior Advocate, in order to substantiate his

submission regarding the posts being sanctioned, relied upon

averments made in the rejoinder to the reply filed by the State

respondents before the Tribunal. He relied upon a communication

dated 09.07.2008 issued by the Principal of Dr. Meghnad Saha

Institute of Technology to the Director of Technical Education and

Training. The communication is in respect of one Shri Tarun Kumar

Changdar, similarly engaged as the present petitioners. One

information given under the Right to Information Act by the principal

of the Contai polytechnic which is dated 31.08.2022, is relied upon in

this regard in WPST 122 of 2025. The information relates to queries

made under Right to Information Act by one Sri Subrata

Bandyopadhyay who is also not a writ petitioner before this court.

16. Insofar as the requisite qualification for recruitment of regular

lecturers in the polytechnics the learned Senior Advocate for the writ

petitioners relied upon the “All India Council for Technical Education

(Pay Scales Service Conditions and Qualifications For the Teachers and

7

Other Academic Staff In Technical Institutions (diploma)), Regulation,

2010”. And AICTE Regulations on pay scales namely: “The All India

Council for Technical Education Pay Scales, Service Conditions and

Minimum Qualifications for the Appointment of Teachers and other

Academic Staff such as Library and Physical Education Personnel in

Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards

in Technical Education- (Diploma) Regulation, 2019.

17. It is thus, submitted that in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of

Karnataka & Ors., vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors.

1. The writ petitioners

were fulfilling all the requisites for being considered for regularization.

18. Learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner further submitted

that the writ petitioners were performing an essential function in the

Polytechnics by imparting education, which is intrinsic to the

functioning of the polytechnics. They have rendered such service

continuously for a decade. The authorities have taken advantage of

their services for more than a decade. They have invested their prime

part of their life to sustain the activities of the polytechnics, which

otherwise could not continue with imparting education. The

authorities having taken advantage of the services rendered by the

writ petitioners for such a long time were obliged to consider the

petitioner for regularization. The authorities were also required to

consider that the writ petitioners were discharging their duties at par

with regular lecturers. They were being assigned work other than

1

(2006) 4 SCC 1

8

teaching such as performing the duties of head of department and

internal coordinator. They were also required to discharge the duties

of training and placement officer. Such submissions are supported by

orders to this effect dated 12.06.2017, 26.07.2016 and 20.02.2013

respectively enclosed with the writ petition. Such long term extraction

of regular work under a temporary label according to the learned

Advocate for the petitioner offends the promise of equal protection and

corrodes the confidence in public administration.

19. It is further submitted that such “ ad-hocism” thrives where

administration is opaque. The state cannot prefer such precarious

engagement on sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. In

support of such submission the learned Sr. advocate for the writ

petitioner relied upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of (1) Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,

2

(2) U.P

Junior High School Council Instructor Welfare Association vs.

State of UP and Ors.,

3

and (3) Jaggo vs. Union of India and ors.

4

.

Thus, it is submitted that the writ petitioners in view of the facts and

circumstances above were entitled to benefit of the law as laid down

by these judgments, favouring regularization of such employees.

20. The learned advocate for the State respondent, on the other hand

submitted that the Notification for engagement of contractual

lecturers in response to which the petitioners applied; as well as order

of individual engagement of the writ petitioners leave no doubt that

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735

3

(2026) 5 SCC 321

4

(2024) SCC Online SC 3826

9

the engagement was made purely on contractual basis. The service

was liable to automatic termination after expiry of the period of

contract. The engagement order stipulated that engagement will not

confer any right to claim regular appointment/absorption against a

regular post. The applicants in explicit acknowledgement of such

stipulation executed written undertaking that the engagement will not

confer any right; and that they will not claim regular

appointment/absorption. The engagement was for six months, being

the duration of a semester.

21. The post of lecturers of the different disciplines can be filled up only

in accordance with rules of recruitment issued in exercise of power

conferred upon the Government by the proviso to Article 309 of the

Constitution of India. The recruitment rules were notified by the

Department of Technical Education and Training (Polytechnics

Branch), by Gazette Notification dated 21.11.2012. The recruitment

rules contemplate recruitment through the PSC. In fact, the Public

Service Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter in short referred to as

the PSC) initiated a process for recruitment on the vacancy of

lecturers in the various disciplines of polytechnics by publication of

Advertisement No. 24/2018. He referred to the decision of the

Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Uma Devi

(supra). He submitted that the decision of the Constitution Bench in

the case of Uma Devi (supra) holds the field in so far as a claim for

regularization is concerned. Unless petitioners are in a position to

show that they fulfill the requisites as per paragraph 53 of the

10

decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra) there is no scope for the

petitioner to assert a claim for regularization. The learned

Government Pleader also relied upon decision of this Court in the case

of Smt. Nupur Basu v. Union of India

5

and the copy of the

Judgment dated 17.12.2025 is handed over to the Court.

22. The learned G.P. also relied upon decision of the coordinate Bench

of this Court in the case of Sirshendu Ghosh v. State of West

Bengal & Ors.,

6. Copy of the judgment dated 22.12.2021 is handed

over to this Court. The division bench took note of facts which are

common to the present case such as the fact that all the writ

petitioners have been placed in a consolidated monthly pay revised to

35,000/- from 14, 890, subject to enhancement at the rate of 3 per

cent every year based on performance report. They have also been

provided terminal benefits of Rs. 3 lacs on attaining the age of

superannuation (60 years). The Division Bench thus found that the

contractual lecturers in the Polytechnics draw the minimum pay of

the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39-39,100 with AGP of RS. 5,000 meant

for the regular lecturers of polytechnics. The Division Bench

considered the parity in pay of the contractual lecturers vis-à-vis the

regular lecturers and found no reason to grant any further benefit to

writ petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners were rightly not granted

any relief by the Tribunal.

23. The learned Senior Advocate further laid emphasis on the

5

MAT 1066 of 2025

6

(WPST) 107 of 2016

11

recruitment process undertaken for filling up posts in the

polytechnics by Advertisement No. 24/2018, under the recruitment

Rules of 2012. Despite opportunity in this regard there is no material

on record to suggest that the writ petitioners participated in the

recruitment process. In the present case the authorities did not prefer

a precarious contractual employment over regular appointments. In

fact, process for regular appointment to the post was initiated vide

Advertisement No.24/2018. It was, therefore, open to the petitioners

to avail the opportunity to become regular employees, but they did not

do so. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned G.P that the facts of

the present case are at variance with the facts arising for

consideration in the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of

Dharam Singh (supra), U.P. Junior School Welfare Association

(supra) and Jaggo (supra).

24. The learned GP further submitted that very recent decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Najma Khatun v. The

State of West Bengal & Ors.

7

, has reiterated the law as laid down

by the Constitution Bench in the case of Uma Devi (supra). The writ

petitioners did not fulfill the requisites for consideration for

regularization of this service. It is therefore, submitted that the

Tribunal rightly rejected the petitioners’ claim for regularization. The

order of the Tribunal dated 04.04.2025 in OA No. 490 of 2026, does

not merit any interference.

25. Upon consideration of rival submissions made by learned Counsel

7

2026 SCC OnLine SC 1313

12

for the parties, the undisputed facts emerged that the petitioners’

recruitment on contractual basis was preceded by an Advertisement

for such recruitment wherein there was prescription of qualification

for recruitment of lecturers in the polytechnics. However, we find that

the advertisement does not indicate that the contractual engagement

was being done on or against sanctioned posts. There is no dispute

that writ petitioners’ contractual engagements were extended from

time to time, subject to undertaking given by the petitioners that the

engagement is purely contractual and that they shall not claim any

benefit of regularization/absorption.

26. It is also not in dispute that the recruitment rules for appointment

of regular lecturers was notified on 21.11.2012. Thereafter

recruitment process was also initiated by the PSC in the year 2018 by

Advertisement No. 24 of 2018. There is nothing on record to suggest

that the petitioners applied/participated in the recruitment process

pursuant to Advertisement No. 24 of 2018. There is also no dispute

that the petitioners’ consolidated pay was revised placing them in the

minimum pay scale for lecturers in Polytechnics with other benefits

such as annual increment at the rate of 3 per cent subject to

performance of result. They were also allowed terminal benefits at Rs.

3 lacs upon attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners have

thus been granted those benefits along with a security tenure till the

age of 60 years.

27. Under such circumstances we find that the petitioners’ claim is

squarely covered by a decision of the coordinate bench in the case of

13

Sirshendu Ghosh (supra). While considering the case of Sirshendu

Ghosh (supra) the coordinate bench also considered their rights with

reference to decisions of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Devi (supra). The

coordinate bench still did not find any sustainable claim for

regularization being made by the petitioners therein. We are of the

view that the case of the present petitioners was covered by the

decisions of the coordinate bench in the case of Sirishendu Ghosh

(supra). The communications dated 31.08.2022 and information

09.07.2008 under RTI relied upon in WPST 121 of 2025 and WPST

122 of 2025 respectively to sustain a plea that the petitioners were

appointed against sanctioned post is untenable. The communication

dated 31.08.2022 and the information dated 09.07.2008 under RTI

are in respect of appointment of Mr. Tarun Kumar Changdar and

information sought by one Subrata Bandyopadhyay under R.T.I. The

communications did not state anything as regards the posts against

which the present petitioners were appointed on contract basis.

Therefore, these documents do not support the writ petitioners pleas

that they were appointed against sanctioned posts. The petitioners,

therefore, did not fulfill the requisite criteria mentioned in paragraph

53 of the Constitution Bench Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

28. Uma Devi (supra) case was subsequently considered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.L.

14

Kesari

8

The relevant extract of the decision of the apex Court is as

follows:

“7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the

general principles against “regularisation” enunciated in Umadevi (3)

[(2006) 4 SCC 1] , if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years

or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection

of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the

State Government or its instrumentality should have employed

the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and

continuously for more than ten years.

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal,

even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or

continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons

appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications,

the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the

person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and

was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected

without undergoing the process of open competitive selection,

such appointments are considered to be irregular.

10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in

Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , cases of several daily-wage/ad

hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts.

Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did

not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other

hand, some government departments or instrumentalities

undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees

from consideration either on the ground that their cases were

pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such

circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be

considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3)

[(2006) 4 SCC 1] , will not lose their right to be considered for

regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was

completed without considering their cases, or because the six-

month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4

SCC 1] has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all

daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years

of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the

protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any

employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of

Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , but did not consider the cases of

some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of

Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , the employer concerned should

consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time

exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all

the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of

para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] , are so considered.”

29. We already found that the petitioners herein were not appointed

against sanctioned post. They also did not complete 10 years of

8

(2010) 9 SCC 247

15

continuous service as on 10.04.2006 as contemplated in the M.L

Kesari (supra).

30. Insofar as the decision of the apex Court in the case of Jaggo

(supra) is concerned we find that the appellants therein were working

on Group D posts and discharging their duties since 1993 to 2004.

They were all abruptly terminated in the year 2018. The apex Court

found their abrupt termination to be arbitrary and devoid of any

justification. Their termination was held to be in violation of principle

of natural justice. The apex Court further took notice of the conduct

of the respondent therein by issuing tenders for outsourcing the same

task, during pendency of the judicial proceedings despite stay order

directing maintenance of status quo. The apex Court thus found the

action of the employer to be lacking in bona fides, in contravention of

judicial directives and highlighting the respondents’ unwillingness to

acknowledge the appellants’ rights. The appellants also established a

fact that individuals with lesser tenure of comparable roles were

regularized by the respondent. It is under such circumstances the

apex Court held the appellants therein to be entitled to relief of setting

aside of their termination orders and that they be taken back in duty

forthwith by regularizing their services. The facts of that case are at

stark variance with the facts of the petitioners herein taken note of

above. The petitioners, therefore are not in a position to claim benefit

of decision of the apex court in the case of Jaggo (supra).

31. In the case of Dharam Singh (supra) the appellant therein were

engaged by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission

16

between 1989 and 1999. They were discharging ministerial and

support function in the organization. The commission resolved to

create posts and sought sanction from the State Government. The

State, in turn, asked for details of the daily wage hands working in

the organization. The commission thereafter reiterated its requests for

sanction for the posts on which the appellants therein were

discharging ad hoc duties. The State rejected the proposal which was

questioned by the appellants. They filed Writ Petition before the High

Court, wherein they sought relief of quashing of the State’s order

dated 11.11.1999, rejecting the proposal for sanction of posts. They

also sought directions in the nature of a writ of mandamus to

sanction/create posts. No such issue arose for consideration in the

present case. In the present case the petitioners accepted their

successive contractual engagements which was not made against

sanctioned post, with explicit stipulation that the same will not entitle

them to any benefits of absorption /regularization. The petitioners’

case therefore, is factually distinguishable from the case of Dharam

Singh (supra). Therefore, they cannot claim any benefit from the

judgment.

32. In so far as the case of U.P. Junior High School Council

Instructors Welfare Association (Supra). we find that the

Instructors/Teachers were contractually engaged. The authorities

continued to take work from them on fixed honorarium at Rs. 7,000/-

per month. The authorities had recommended for enhancement of

their honorarium. On refusal to grant enhancement the appellants

17

therein invoked writ jurisdiction. The Single Bench of the High Court

directed for payment at enhanced rate which was assailed before the

Division Bench which directed the State Government to pay

honorarium at the enhanced rate per months but only for the year

2017-18.

33. Since the petitioners were deprived of their payment for the period

after 2017-18 they approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court took

notice of the various proposals made by the State Government to the

Project Approval Board for enhancement of honorarium payable to the

Instructors/Teachers. The decision of the Additional Chief Secretary

accepting such proposal was also considered by the apex Court

Thereafter, the Apex Court took notice of the fact that despite such

decision necessary funds were not released and the amount of

honorarium was decreased by the Executive Committee of the

Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad of the State. The Apex Court in the said

case also considered that appointment of the Instructors/Teachers

was with a condition that they would not directly or indirectly take up

any part time appointment or whole-time job anywhere else. The apex

court thus, was of the view that the moment the Government

prohibits the instructors/teachers from taking up any part-time or

whole-time job anywhere else, they have to be treated as full time

teachers. No such facts arise for consideration in the present case and

the present case is distinguishable with the facts which arose for

consideration in the case of UP Junior School Council (supra).

34. We therefore, find no force in the claim set out by the writ

18

petitioners. On the contrary we find the petitioners’ case covered by a

decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Sirshendu Ghosh

(supra).

35. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Najma

Khatun (supra) reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution

Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra)

in the following terms:

“31.…..d). We find no merit in such prayer. First, this petitioner has

not claimed the relief of regularisation in the writ petition. Grant of

relief beyond the prayer clauses, though normally impermissible,

could be considered in exceptional cases. This does not qualify to be

an exceptional case warranting departure from the settled rule of “no

prayer, no relief”. Secondly, the question of regularisation in service

does not arise in this case because of the nature of breach that has

occasioned. This Court in Jaggo (supra) and even in the most recent

decision in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee (supra) might have taken a

liberal view but such views have to be read as confined to its own

facts rather than laying down law which is binding under Article 141

of the Constitution. State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and Official

Liquidator v. Dayanand are larger Bench decisions of this Court. The

ratio laid down therein has neither been doubted nor diluted by any

Bench of co-equal strength. The principle of stare decisis and Article

141 of the Constitution leaves us with no choice. Article 141

commands and the law declared in Umadevi (supra) and Dayanand

(supra) binds all. Ratio, if any, laid down in the said decisions of

Benches of lesser strength is debatable and we are not persuaded to

follow the same…”

We already found that the petitioners failed to make out a case based

on facts so as to claim any benefit of regularization in terms of

paragraph 53 of the judgment, Uma Devi (supra).

19

36. The writ petitioners therefore, in our opinion could not make out a

case for regularization/absorption before the Tribunal. The Tribunal

therefore in our opinion rightly rejected the writ petitioners’ claim for

regularization. The order of the Tribunal requires no interference in

exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

37. Both the writ petitions are dismissed.

38. 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.)