Tripura High Court
Manisha Rudra Paul vs The State Of Tripura on 23 April, 2021
Page - 1 of 9
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.625/2017
Manisha Rudra Paul, D/o - Sri Gopal Rudra Paul, R/o - Vill- Subhash Palli,
P.O - Ambassa, P.S - Ambassa, District - Dhalai Tripura.
.............. Petitioner(s).
Vs.
1. The State of Tripura, represented By its Secretary-cum-Commissioner,
Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tripura,
Agartala, New Secretariat Building, P.S - New Capital Complex, P.O. -
Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura, P.O - Gurkha
Basti, P.S - New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura.
3. Sri Anupam Nath, S/o - Sri Binay Bhusan Nath, Vill & P.O - Doulbari,
P.S - Sabroom, District - South Tripura.
4. Smt. Sucheta Dey, D/o - Swapan Dey, New Jail Road (Baidya Tilla),
P.O - Belonia, South Tripura, Pin - 799155.
5. Sri Raju Majumder, S/o - Sri Ramlal Majumder, Vill - Tulamura, P.O -
Jitendra Nagar, Udaipur, Gomoti Tripura, Pin - 799105.
6. Sri Basudeb Pal Choudhuri, S/o - Sri Bidhan Pal Choudhury, Najrul
Sarani, Hospital Road, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, Pin - 799250.
7. Smt. Papia Ranu Baul, D/o - Late Sudhangshu Rn. Baul, Vill - North
Badharghat (Unnayan Sangha), P.O - A.D.Nagar, West Tripura, Pin -
799003.
8. Sri Birbar Debnath, S/o - Benimadhab Debnath, Vill - Purba
Durlabnarayan, P.O - Durlabnarayan, P.S - Sonamura, Sepahijala,
Tripura, Pin - 799 115.
9. Sri Sumit Saha, S/o - Sanjib Kr. Saha, Vill - Tamsabari, P.O & P.S -
Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura, Pin - 799181.
10. Sri Dipankar Nath Sharma, S/o - Late Bhusan Nath Sharma, Vill -
Batekha, P.O & P.S - Kalyanpur, Khowai Tripura, Pin - 799203.
Page - 2 of 9
11. Smt. Nanda Majumder, D/o - Sri Narayan Chandra Majumder, Vill -
Sathmura, P.O - Sarashima, P.S - Belonia, Dist - South Tripura, Pin -
799155.
12. Sri Sudip Kumar Das, S/o - Sri Dilip Kumar Das, Vill & P.O - 1. No.
Fulkumari, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura, Pin - 799120.
13. Sri Anup Kumar Das, S/o - Late Surjya Kanta Das, Vill, P.O & P.S -
Manughat, Longtharai Vally, Dhalai Tripura, Pin - 799275.
14. Sri Naresh Sarkar, S/o - Late Guneswar Sarkar, Vill - Kashipur, Near
Water Supply, P.O - Resham bagan, P.S - East Agartala, Pin - 799008.
15. Sri Borun Chakma, S/o - Late Gunamoni Chakma, Vill & P.O -
Machmara, P.S - Pecharthal, Unakoti Tripura.
16. Sri Moses Jamatia, S/o - Late Sarga Jamatia, Mission Compound, A. D.
Nagar, P.S - A. D. Nagar, Agartala, Pin - 799003.
17. Sri Subhash Debbarma, S/o - Sri Baidya Debbarma, Vill- Narayan Bari,
P.O - S. N. Colony, P.S - Jirania, West Tripura.
18. Smt Upama Marak, D/o - Late Pranesh Marak, Vill - Patichari, P.O - P.
P. Colony, Santirbazar, South Tripura, Pin - 799125.
19. Sri Apu Chakma, S/o - Late Khagendra Chakma, Vill - South Takma,
P.O - Manpathar, P.S - Santirbazar, South Tripura, Pin - 799144.
20. Md. Bulbul Islam, S/o - Md. Tazul Islam, Vill & P.O - West Noabadi,
P.S - BudhjungNagar, West Tripura, Pin -799155.
.............. Respondent(s).
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D Sarkar, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D Bhattacharaya, Govt. Advocate,
Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate,
Mr. S Saha, Advocate.
Date of hearing & Judgment : 23rd April, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
Page - 3 of 9
J U D G M E N T ( O R A L)
Petitioner has challenged the selection process for the post of
Physiotherapist for which she had applied but was not selected.
[2] Brief facts are as under :
The Government of Tripura had issued a notification inviting
eligible candidates to apply for several Government posts including that of
Physiotherapist in the scale of pay of Rs.5,700-24,000/- in Pay Band - II
with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-. In all 18 such posts were advertised, 10 were
for Unreserved(UR) category, 5 for Scheduled Tribe(ST) and 3 for
Scheduled Caste(SC) category candidates.
[3] The petitioner held the necessary educational and other
qualifications. She, therefore, applied in response to the said advertisement.
Along with other eligible candidates she was invited for walk-in interview
which were conducted in the month of September, 2016. Upon completion
of the selection process, a select list was prepared and published, a copy
which is produced at Annexure - 3. This did not contain the name of the
petitioner. She has, therefore, filed this petition.
[4] In the petition and before me learned counsel for the petitioner has
taken following grounds of challenge :
Page - 4 of 9
(a) The interview Board did not include an expert.
(b) The questions put to the petitioner were totally irrelevant.
(c) Interview was conducted in a haphazard manner. No proper
selection was made.
(d) As a result of such procedure, persons less meritorious than the
petitioner were selected and appointed who are joined as
private respondents in this petition.
(e) The petitioner had the experience of 4 years in the field which
was not taken into consideration.
[5] The official respondents have appeared and filed their reply. It is
pointed out that the interview Board consisted of Dr. Dilip Kr. Roy, Asstt.
D. H. S as a Chariman, Smt. Shipra Das, Nursing Supdt. D.H.S., as a
Member, Dr. Satyabrata Nath, Asstt. Professor, AGMC & GBP Hospital,
as a Member. The Board also contained representatives of the SC and ST
Welfare Departments. It is stated that the interviews were conducted by the
Board and there was no illegality in the process.
[6] Some of the private respondents have appeared and filed reply
and opposed the petition through their advocate Mr. Raju Datta.
[7] The composition of a selection Board is ordinarily left to the
Government and its agencies. In the present case, when the interview Board
Page - 5 of 9
included 2 doctors and a nursing specialist besides the representatives of
the SC and ST Welfare Departments, I do not find anything intrinsically
wrong with the constitution of the interview Board. The petitioner has also
not joined the members of the Board for making direct allegations of
irrelevant questions being put to her. The question of judging the
petitioner's experience, also is primarily the task of the interview Board.
Unless such experience is mandatory and made an essential qualification,
what weightage such experience should carry, cannot normally be a subject
matter of adjudication. The selection of a candidate would depend on range
of factors including the experience required.
[8] However, one ground which really appeals to me is the manner in
which the interviews must have been conducted. This emerges from a
document produced by the official respondents along with the reply. This is
an order dated 1st September, 2016 announcing the composition of the
interview committees and the date and time when the interviews for
different posts advertised by the Government would be conducted.
Relevant portion of this document reads as under :
"2(two) board is constituted comprising of the following officers
for conducting interview for selection of candidates for recruitment
in different posts which will be held as per following schedule in
Page - 6 of 9
the O/o the Deputy Drugs Controller, Pandit Nehru Complex,
Gurkhabosti, Agartala, West Tripura.
...............................................................
Name of the Name of the Board Chairman & Member Date and time of
post interview.
1. Dr. Dilip Kr. Roy, Asstt. DHS, Gr.-III Token No.1 to
13th September,
2. Smt. Shipra Das, Nursing 2016
Superintendent, In-charge Nursing from 11:00 AM
Cell(Nursing Service), O/o the DHS ...... to 1:30 PM.
Physiotherapist
Member.
3. Dr. Satyabrata Nath, Assistant
Professor, AGMC & GBP Hospital,
Agartala .......... Member.
4. Representative from Welfare of SCs
Department, Govt. of Tripura...............
Member.
5. Representative from Welfare of STs
Department, Govt of Tripura .............
Member. "
[9] As per this schedule, thus the interview Board would conduct
interviews of 119 candidates, on 13th September 2016, for the post of
Physiotherapist between 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Perusal of this document
would show that the interview Board composition changed slightly from
post to post, however Dr. Dilip Kr. Roy was the Chairman of several other
interview Boards constituted for selection to other posts as well. Meetings
of these interview Committees were also held on 13th, 14th and 15th
September, 2016 during which time the interview Boards had conducted
large number of similar interviews. For example, on 13th September 2016
Page - 7 of 9
itself between 2:00 to 4:30 p.m., this interview Committee with one
substitution had listed 115 candidates for interview for the post of
Ophthalmic Assistant. Similarly, on 14th September 2016, this Committee
with one substitution was scheduled to interview 150 candidates for Record
Technician between 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and another 156 candidates for
the same post on 14th September, 2016 between 2:00 to 4:30 p.m. Thus,
even after accounting for a few no-show candidates, the board would have
interviewed large number of candidates in a short time of two or two and a
half hours.
[10] What I am trying to derive at through this data is that the
interviews were conducted in most hurried manner when in two and half
hours the Board interviews of close to 119 candidates, accounting for time
for previous candidate to go out, new candidate to come in the room and
for the candidates to settle down, per candidate on an average the Board
would have less than a minute to spend. In some cases, the Board had
called for interview more than 150 candidates in two and half hours. This
process went on session after session, each day there would be two sessions
of interviews. One can easily imagine the quality of selection and process
that such short time assigned to each candidate would permit. On several
occasions, the Supreme Court has stressed on sufficient time being granted
Page - 8 of 9
to a candidate to be interviewed for public employment. This issue will
assume greater seriousness considering the fact that oral interview was the
sole criterion of appointment. No written tests were conducted. The
appointments were to be made solely on the basis of oral interviews.
[11] The petition, therefore, must succeed in part. However, the
petitioner cannot claim appointment without proving that she herself was
meritorious. By moulding the relief, therefore the equities shall have to be
balanced. Only one petitioner has come forward raising the grievances
about non-selection (besides a few candidates having filed separate
petitions for similar grievances) Private respondents are working on regular
basis since several years. Setting aside their appointments would, therefore,
not be justified. By moulding the relief, therefore, the petition is disposed
of with following directions :
(a) The case of the petitioner shall be considered against the
existing vacancy and against first available vacancy if there is
no vacancy at present, by granting age relaxation.
(b) If there is an existing vacancy, the petitioner shall be called for
oral interview by a Board which may be constituted by the
appointing authority. If the petitioner is found meritorious, she
shall be offered appointment which shall be prospective.
(c) If there is no vacancy available, case of the petitioner shall be
considered in first available vacancy which may arise. In such
Page - 9 of 9
a case petitioner shall be considered along with other eligible
candidates by granting her age relaxation and offered
appointment, if selected.
[12] These directions shall be carried out within 4(four) months from
today, if there is an existing vacancy or within 4(four) months of rising of
the vacancy, if there is none at present.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukehendu
