Sri Monojit Paul vs The State Of Tripura And 44 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 121 Tri

                    Page 1 of 4




         HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
           A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A

         WP(C) No. 1003 of 2017

Sri Monojit Paul,
                                       .....Petitioner

               -V E R S U S-


The State of Tripura and 44 Ors.

                                  ..... Respondents

WP(C) No. 1004 of 2017

Smt. Manti Das (Sarkar)

-V E R S U S-

The State of Tripura and 45 Others

..... Respondents

WP(C) No. 1005 of 2017

Smt. Pampi Dhar

.....Petitioner

-V E R S U S-

The State of Tripura and 44 Ors.

.....Respondents.

WP(C) No. 1006 of 2017

1.Litan Mallik

.....Petitioner

-V E R S U S-

1.The state of Tripura and 44 Ors.

.....Respondents.

WP(C) No. 1007 of 2017

1.Smriti Sarkar Das

.....Petitioner

-V E R S U S-

1.The state of Tripura and 44 Ors.

.....Respondents

B_E_F_O_R_E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. K. Biswas, Advocate.

Mr. G. K. Nama, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.

Date of Judgment        :     05.02.2021
Whether fit for
reporting               :     NO





           J_ U_ D_ G _M_ E_ N_ T (O_R_A_L)

Heard Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned counsel assisted by

Mr. G. K. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also

heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-

respondents.

[2] It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that

all these writ petitions are covered by a judgment passed by another

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 664 of 2017 [titled as

Rupak Das & Others v. State of Tripura & Others] dated 30.07.2019.

For the purpose of reference, the operative part of the aforementioned

judgment and order may be reproduced hereinbelow:

19. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the records as produced by the official respondents, this court does not find any illegality in constitution of the selection committee/board or in the selection process. Though allegation of malpractice has been raised, but that allegation is not even supported by necessary pleadings or particulars. No bias against any member of the selection board has been attributed by any candidate. On scrutiny of the records of selection, this court does not find any apparent error or trace of malpractice. So far the objection raised in respect of very short time for interview, this court is of the view that the selection process is dissected in various parts including the scrutiny of records and viva voce. Mere statement that no question was put to the petitioners or any of the petitioners is not sufficient. Such allegation has to be established by the person who alleged likewise. He had to immediately react to the method by filing the representation or raising protest. In this case, what has been observed is that no such protest was raised. Only after selection was made, the petitioners started agitating their grievance against their non-selection. From the reports, as relied, it transpires clearly that the grounds as raised are not sufficient to reverse the selection. The petitioners cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the selection process after their discovery that they were not selected. It is well settled law that unless material irregularity or illegality in the selection process is established by the petitioner, the law of estoppel would operate against him and he would not be allowed to challenge

the selection after participation. Moreover, it has not been disputed by the petitioners that the candidates who are selected lack the required qualification or eligibility. No other perspective fact which would persuade this court to interfere has been laid.

20. Having observed thus, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Records as produced be returned forthwith."

[3] I have gone through the factual and legal aspects of the

present writ petitions and I am of the considered view that the present

writ petitions are squarely covered by the said judgment as referred

to above [WP(C) No. 664 of 2017 dated 30.07.2019].

[4] Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed in terms of

the judgment as indicated above [WP(C) No. 664 of 2017 dated

30.07.2019].

[5]            Send down the LCRs forthwith.


                                                                              JUDGE



A.Ghosh